E148: McCarthy ousted, border chaos, Cruise's robotaxi "accident" & more

26:33However, it certainly doesn't look like that. It's the exact same. Again, that's from the border patrol and that is encounters, not actually people who got through. So, and then the border states are saying that those numbers are wrong and there's a lot more people getting through and Eric Adams in New York, where a lot of these people are being sent. And this has obviously been the most politicized issue, I think, of the last decade. Governor Abbott in August of 2022, quote, New York City is the ideal destination for these migrants who can receive the abundance of city services and housing that Mayor Adams has posted about within the sanctuary city.

27:13Here are the clips and then I'll get your responses from those when we get back. This is horrific when you think about what the governor is doing, the governor of Texas, but we are going to set the right message, the right tone of being here for these families. Before we began busing illegal immigrants up to New York, it was just Texas and Arizona that bore the brunt of all of the chaos and all the problems that come with it. Now the rest of America is understanding exactly what is going on. All right. So this is obviously something that New York City is unable to handle. Those are from August of last year when this was flaming up.

27:54According to Abbott, Texas has given Bustick as to 42 ,000 migrants. And as of late September, 119 migrants have arrived in New York City since the spring of 22. About 30 % of New York City migrants have been and bust in from Texas. I'll stop there and just get your general reactions to what you all believe is happening at the border since we're getting a highly politicized take on each of these. It's become super polarized and the numbers, any accurate numbers do not exist, sex. I don't think it's hard to understand what's going on at the border. I think there are people who want to understand the numbers of what's going on.

28:32I don't even think the numbers are that hard. You have a better source in them. I have some numbers that are similar to yours, but so Satista goes back to 2019. So the numbers I have are about in 2019, which is when remaining in Mexico went into effect. The number was 851 ,000. Then it went down to 400 ,000 because of COVID and Title 42. Then in 2021, we had about 1 .7 million, which was a new record. Then in 2022, we are up to 2 .7 million, which was a new record. and the question is what is happening in 2023? Obviously, we don't have a full year of data, but given that we've eliminated Remain in Mexico and Title 42, I don't think anybody seriously doubts that we're headed for a new record.

29:15And in fact, the Washington Post had articles in August of September saying that those months were all time records, and now they're surpassing 11 ,000 daily migrant encounters of the border just twice last week. So, and you know what, what Elon reported You said that link. He said that link so we can pull off. And then also just, you know, it's just that. That was NBC News. Okay. I was gonna say, Statista is an aggregator. They don't do primary researches here now. So which one? But those numbers were pretty similar to yours. Maybe from the same source. We also have the video evidence. We have the fact that, you know, Elon went down there and reported exactly what we're seeing in other contexts, which is new records virtually every day and every week and every month.

29:56The Border Patrol agents are basically being overrun. And so you made the correct point that this only measures encounters. It doesn't measure the actual number of people going through Well, if border patrol is overrun Then the number of encounters relative to them real getting through is obviously going to be very understated so I Think we're on track for another huge record in 2023 and the point is that the pace is accelerating Elon gave the simple math There's eight billion people in the world. How many of them would want to be in the United States if they could? but probably billions. At least half of them.

30:30At least half of them. And I don't blame them. Okay, I want to be in these issues too. Okay, but obviously we can't handle all the people who want to be here. And the word has gone out via social media, via word of mouth, that the border is effectively open. And we've seen numerous videos. It wasn't just Elon when RFK went down there to Yuma, Arizona. There's a hundred different countries. There's a big hole in the wall and people are just lining up. And - But it was a hundred different countries, right? I mean, it was not a chance. and Elon broadcast the exact same thing coming from Eagle Pass.

31:01So the point is you've got all of these different points where there is no wall and people are just lining up and being let through. And in some cases, they're just running through because the border patrol is overrun. So we effectively have no border. I mean, let's admit the truth. Now, and I think that the mainstream media and the Biden administration, their policy, was basically CNO evil, here no evil, and deny the reality of what was happening. Eric Adams was one of the first Democrats to break ranks saying, listen, we can see the migrants lining up in tents going around the block. We are trying to put them up in hotels, it's costing us $12 billion.

31:41We can't afford it. But Eric Adams has always been a little bit of a maverick inside the Democratic party. We talked about how he was tough on crime during the Chase of Boudin era, which is why I supported him. He's a moderate. He was a moderate. But then you had Kathy Hocal, who's the governor of New York, who's nothing if not a machine politician just in the last week saying we cannot handle this. So she broke ranks, which was I think a big news story. And now the latest is that the Biden administration itself might be breaking ranks. I think Jamal, you posted a really interesting story that, New York is who's the Secretary of DHS just posted a notice in the federal register, which said there is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads.

32:25Is it the vicinity of the border? I don't want to say wall. Don't say the devil. I just don't want to put a very powerful entry into the United States. Now there was no press conference on this. The way that this got reported is some reporter was doing their job keeping track of the federal register and saw that New Yorkists had posted a notice saying that they need to construct a wall. Now Biden hasn't said this. No one on the administration said this, but clearly. for obvious reasons. Yeah. For obvious reasons. So Jason, what do you think the obvious reason is? Well, the obvious reason is Trump's entire presidency was predicated on, hey, we're going to build this wall.

33:01And but I'm saying you go back and say that he was right is untenable to this administration. National security. It's like, yes. And so they're going to do that. Obviously, and build the wall, but they don't want to say it. So it's just ridiculous. But just one important point to what David said, New York City has a right to shelter. So that means every immigrant who comes there, they have to put them in a hotel and these are like turns out $400 or $500 a night hotel. So this has become cataclysmic. They're obviously needs to be a border and it's ridiculous to say there shouldn't be a border. Nobody believes that.

33:30I don't know why this administration just can't admit that there needs to be a border of some kind. And we can talk about what they want. But Shema. Well, though, actually, it's a better solution than a wall, but we'll get to that. What is it? Well, I don't want to jump Shema if he had something to say. So, I'll explain in a second if you want, or I can jump to it. No, jump to it, jump to it. Okay, so obviously people are talking about a wall. Walls are a terrible solution because there are ladders that can go over them pretty easily. What you really need to have is eyes on it. And the two best solutions, you can see them here.

34:00Israel has had a really, they understand borders really well. And so what you're seeing if you're watching are these towers, which do a great job of monitoring the border. And you could put about 2 ,000 of these towers, they have a range of easily a mile. This is next -gen, watered by EBIT systems. It's a Israeli -based company. It's 160 -foot surveillance tower. Andral actually has a century tower as well, our friend of the pod, Palmer Lockies Company andral. And obviously, oh, and the Border Patrol already has 10 of the towers. Well, why do you see as an either war? I'm just curious. Like, why would you do both?

34:38I think that these smart land posts, as I call them, are the number one first thing to do because you could deploy these in a fraction of the time. You could have served a thousand of these in under a year for $4 billion. And so these only cost $2 million each. The 10 towers that were put in, were put in a 26 million in the pilot. So if you put 2 ,000 of these towers in, you just picked four different vendors, so they do 500 each and you test them. That would be $4 billion. That would be nothing. What do you do when you when the camera spots person you send intercepts there and then you build the walls where people are crossing most so that would be Mine, you know, most of them are crossing most they're crossing the walls you look for hotspots David So you would but we don't there's hotspots that we don't know about so I'd say you deploy these for four billion very quickly And then where there are hotspots you obviously build walls, but you're still good in you can be frank about this sure Be a frank as you like look Regardless of what you think about Trump, this may or kiss revelation completely and utterly vindicates his approach to wanting to build a wall.

35:40And there's so many people who won't just admit that he was right, that we need a strong border wall, not because it's perfect, not because you can't climb over it if you have the right tools, but because a wall is more defensible than an open field. Now, look, I'm all in favor of these towers and the cameras. And my understanding is that a lot of the parts of Trump's wall did have cameras on them. Yeah, I know he gets better. The point is that you have video now coming out of thousands of people streaming across running. You need a wall to stop that. You also need cameras and border guards and all the rest of it.

36:12Just so you know, 2000 miles of wall is going to be like a decade -long project. No, no. That's only a point. Okay, it's only a decade -long if you allow all of these core challenges that are designed to frustrate it. The fact of the matter is, look, we don't need 2000 miles of wall because there are a lot natural barriers along the border, where you have deep rivers or mountains or whatever, we're not going to need the wall. However, there are pieces of the wall that were literally laying on the ground. They were unfinished from Trump's term. By the way, Trump should have gotten that done. He didn't in any event, whatever.

36:43The point is the Biden administration was actually selling those pieces of wall for scrap metal for two cents on the dollar. This was a story that came out. Now they're admitting that we need the wall. That was pure politics. That makes no sense. They had the construction materials. They should have just finished it. American publics. Yeah, the American publics. It's utterly ridiculous. All of them. That's like crazy. It's because the American government didn't like who said the right thing and the tone in which he said it. Yes. And they didn't like the separating of children from whatever they politicize that.

37:16Both parties are equally just grossed at a situation and in combination. It should be a point -based system. you'll lock the border and you allow people in, you know, as I've said 10 times on this podcast, based on merit, what they're going to contribute to our society, those work, that's recruitment, some amount of people who are need asylum because they're going to be murdered, i .e. Afghanistan, people who supported us, Afghans who supported us during the war, and then finally the order in process of people applying to come in here. Do your jobs, everybody. Paul, please, Nick. What happens when you get to the border, guys?

37:49Do you just get admitted to America. This is insane. Okay. The Biden administration started auctioning off what they called spare border wall parts. Okay. I mean, how does Biden live this down? I think it's going to cost me a lot. Yeah, you're 100 % right about that. Yeah, I think this is like this is a setup for a very bad ad. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, I think this is just because it's become so politicized, point -based system recruitment over chaos, build a wall, build a sensor tower. What do you do in the meantime? There are tens of thousands of people a day hitting the southern border. We have a national guard.

38:27We have something called the National Guard. We send them there. They have to be deployed anyway. You just deploy the National Guard. That's the same old term. But same old, same old, same old. You would put the military to basically turn these people around. Of course. Of course you turn them around. Yes, that's it. Well, it's just a real leap. National Guard will be quickest, the towers will be second quickest, and the wall's gonna take forever. You need a wall. But how do you process the asylum claim? Because isn't the whole point of asylum like, you can't send them back to this country in which they're going to be killed in?

38:53And so it's an imperfect process, Tramock, obviously. So Saxony and a few other folks, we held a fundraiser for Vivek Ramaswamy last week. And we talked about this a lot. And one of the things that we learned is that all the people that come to the Southern border are trained in YouTube and TikTok and Instagram, exactly what to say so that you have to accept the asylum claim. And so far there should be a limited number of them. That's it. You have this many per year. I understand, but you don't know whether that person who was helping us in Afghanistan ends up coming in October and not in March and that's the reason why they can't get in.

39:30The thing that I learned is that it's a specific script, it's available in multiple languages, right? So anybody who gets to the southern border knows exactly what to say so that America is forced to accept you. That is not how asylum should work. The bad news is not everybody is going to get in. Not everybody will get in. That's it. Jake, there's two things we need to do. In addition to your point about sending troops to the border because we do need the manpower. Yeah, it's obvious. Number one to Chimas Point, you can't just say the word asylum and get in. That doesn't make sense. You should have to produce evidence of actually meeting the case for asylum, which is not being economically disadvantaged, it's being politically prosecuted, where if you're sent back to your home country, they're gonna put you in jail or kill you.

40:12And there aren't many countries in the world, quite frankly, where that is gonna be a valid claim, just to be honest about it. I mean, if you have a freedom fighter from Iran coming over who's gonna be put in jail or killed, let him in. But that's not most of the people lining up at our border. If you're coming from Mexico, there's a very small chance that you are being bullied. The other thing we gotta do is, You got to reinstitute remain in Mexico. That was the policy. Yeah, you can't agree. 100 % just waiting on this side of the border because they're never going to show up in court. Yeah, I mean, listen, we want immigration to this country.

40:45It has to be logical. And the fact is everybody wants to come here. That's a great thing. We should be taking advantage of that, but it can't be chaos. It's got to be orderly. That's what everybody wants. I don't know why how this became a political issue. Everybody wants orderly. Everybody wants recruitment. No one wants an open board. Well, but Jake, in order for it not to be a political issue, you need both parties to agree and they currently don't. I mean, think about it. What's in Biden's interest right now is to do a 180 on this issue before it's too late. He's got to do it. Yes, absolutely.

41:13And it's very simple for him to say, which is because everybody knows that the border doesn't have a wall. We've seen an increase. There's been a 10X increase. The situation on the field has changed. Therefore, we're going to change. And we're going to do all these things. And if one of them is building a wall and you want to say You can say, gotcha, but it's the right thing to do because data has changed my opinion. Where do we get to the point where data can't change your opinion? Data should change your opinion. The data is clear that more people are coming through. That's why I made such a point at the top of this is like, we don't even have good data.

41:45What these sensor towers would do would at least give us data and would give us clarity. And then you only need a unit every half mile. So you need 4 ,000 units patrolling the border and they would catch everybody. It isn't as expensive as people think it is. This could be, I mean, the less the less amount of money we gave, what was the last appropriation for Ukraine, Saxons, I'll give you a red meme. Well, we've already appropriated or authorized over 100 billion and there are 4 % of that cost. Okay, so for three or 4 % of that cost, we could have these censor towers. It's crazy. We're defending Ukraine's border but not our own.

42:22It's a very valid point. Independent of our deal by the way. The list of Republicans up in arms. It's this combined with the lack of fiscal discipline. Now, the craziness about this is if we were sitting here 20 years ago, the Republicans were trying to open the border to have more low skilled workers to work in restaurants, to work in businesses. That's not the place we are today. We have too many people coming in. These are not just low skilled workers to pick vegetables. It's a different group. There was a point in time, Jason, where the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is really the voice of the GOP establishment.

42:57Yes. Supported a constitutional amendment in favor of an open border. This was very much the point of view of the old Republican party, which was this libertarian open borders, open trade free markets position. And the results of those policies have been partially disastrous. I mean, I understand the value of free trade and so forth, but and obviously want to have high school immigration. We've talked about that. But it was too much of a good thing. I mean, they didn't draw intelligent distinctions, but we still have, I think, this to your point about the battle inside the Republican Party, we still have that old GOP establishment, and now there's this new populist wing that wants to make, I think, sensible changes.

43:38Here's the Wall Street Journal story from 2001. Open after worse. Why not? There it is. Yeah, that was Bob Bartley, who was the longtime editorial page editor. He was kind of like a hero in the conservative movement. When I was in college, I read a great book by him called The Seven Fat Years about Supplyside Economics. I think he was right about a lot of that stuff. But along with that economic policy came, I think this open borders, completely open trade view that I think produced a lot of negative results and has to be revisited. And by the way, there's a third leg of that stool, which is forever worse.

44:14The Wall Street Journal is one of the most pro -Ukraine publications there is, both in the news pages and in the editorial page. And they have never revisited the results of our disastrous foreign policy where we keep intervening all over the world. This is the old Republican party. There's a new Republican party that is emerging. And unfortunately, Kevin McCarthy found himself on the wrong side of that divide. All right. So moving on to our next topic, there was a notable accident with a cruise robotaxi in San Francisco this week or not. This is being framed by some as the first automated cruise vehicle to get in an accident but what actually happened is not accurate.

44:57So there was a hit and run incident in San Francisco when was struck by a human driver. That human driver fled the scene. The hit and run launched tragically the woman underneath a cruise vehicle. The cruise vehicle break aggressively according to crews but stopped with its rear tire on top of the woman's leg. Police ask crews to keep the vehicle in place and lock it, which they did. Emergency respondents arrived and used the jaws of life to get the car off the woman's leg. Local media picked the story up. The police asked crews to leave the car, leave the car on the woman's leg. Yes. Why would they do that?

45:36Well, I think actually Sometimes moving. No, no, I do think for my time as EMT, sometimes moving the person can cause more damage than leaving it until you have the emergency services on the scene. So I like to wait for emergency services because moving it, you could have a broken bone hit your firm, your femoral artery, and then you could bleed out. So they just say, stay where you are. Don't make any more movements until EMT's car on top of them. That's ridiculous. It's on the person's leg. So that would mean that they're not in any danger. It might be painful, but if you were to move them, I was taught this when I was in EMT.

46:11If you move people, you have to be very careful because you could cause a spine injury, they could become paralyzed, or you could cut a major artery. You gotta be very... How long were you in EMT? I was the first class in what was called EMT FRs, first responders, and I worked at Bravo ambulance in Brooklyn as an volunteer one for about three or four years. Did you have like a tight outfit, like a tight polo? What are you wearing? Like skinny jeans. Did you have skinny jeans? You wore green pants and a white collared shirt and yeah, I never told you I was the first call I ever got. I never told you that story.

46:42Were you like a sexy paramedic or were you just like a paramedic? I can be whatever you want me to be sure about. Whatever works for your fantasies. He's blushing. Look, he's blushing. I'll tell you my first call. You were a sexy paramedic. I was a little sexy as a paramedic. So I've got him blushing. Here's my first call. I swear to God, it's a night before Thanksgiving. Wednesday night, it's a big night in Brooklyn. I don't know if another place is, but the night before Thanksgiving everybody goes out and parties. So big Wednesday happens. First call comes in. And I was originally the person who picked up the, I was the operator at the 911.

47:09But then my second job, I was on the bus. And so first call, first shift is Big Wednesday. Guy gets, we get a call, that guy got stabbed. We go, the guy is outside TJ Boutnese. And I kid you not, the guy was in charge of the ambulance says, cut the jacket off. I take my shears, we have these really sharp scissors and boom, we go right up to sleep, we cut his jacket. He goes, oh, my members only jacket. He had, we cut him open and his giant hairy chest blood is pumping out like it's like a little water fountain and the guy who was running the bus, I remember I just said he puts his hand up on the other guy, you got bigger problems in this member only jacket.

47:48He says get the mass pants, the mass pants are so you know are used in war. We get trained in them, you never use them. Mass pants are a blood pressure cuff. You put over people's pants to take the blood from their legs, put it into their chest so that they at least survive. The guy says, get the mass pants. I said, get the mass pants. The mass pants are packed away. You never use them. I'm getting the mass pants out. We're whaling down fourth avenue to get this guy and his blood pressure is dropping, his part rates dropping, blood all over the bus. We're trying to control the bleeding. He survived.

48:18You saved him? We saved him. But that was my first call. First call. Nuts. This was a volunteer gig. Volunteer paid for. Nope. Not everything's about money. Free bird. Not everything's about money pretty. Well, I'm not saying it is. I'm just asking. I'm joking with you. Yeah, I guess I want to be a superhero. Yeah. Guys, I texted Jamie, Jason's brother, and I asked him if this was true, and I asked for a photo. Hey, Nick, you want to put up the photo? Oh, no. Oh, there I am. There I am. If you're a hard stop, this is the guy you want to come research. Jay, Caleb, James Day. There we go. Did your heart stop?

48:58Did your heart stop? Dave, because I'm going to resuscitate it. Nick, show the other one. This is the original outfit that when he became a parent model. Oh, no, this better not be ex -rated. Oh, God. Oh, there. I like the second one better. Yeah, we know which one you like better days. Is that a nurse? Is that a thermometer he's got? What is he having to say? That's a needle or thermometer. I think that's like a coat bottle. I think that could be a thermometer. We might need to check your temperature, David. It's like a Pepsi bottle. What the hell? We're gonna take your temperature, Dave. I don't know if you were the Lincoln.

49:28This would be a good temperature. Does that take for you? Exactly. Well, I know it's gonna be really hot. Jason, you did great. Oh God, that happened to be really. Of course you really appreciate your contributions. Wow, great job. All right, back to the story about cruise. Now, this terrible accident. Wow, we got to you, Ralph. Yeah. Well, thanks for the work you did, Jake Hell. Thanks for your service. Okay, so. I'm going to take your vitals. Okay. Local media picked up a e -roll tattoo on your arm too. That was that was removable. Local media picked up on this reporting that Cruz was responsible for the incident.

50:07Director of News for the San Francisco Chronicle, which is a lunatic publication. Woman run over by Cruz Self Driving Car on Market Street in downtown San Francisco, pulled from under rear axle circumstances under investigation. The San Francisco standard posted on X, a woman suffered traumatic injuries after being trapped under a cruise robot a taxi in downtown San Francisco, Mundinate Fire Department spokesperson said. A few weeks ago, as you know, a video circulated on X, formerly known as Twitter, of 20 or so cruise vehicles causing a massive traffic jam at an intersection in Austin. The robot taxee provider issue has become very divisive here in San Francisco.

50:53There are now multiple companies working on it. People in San Francisco will put pilots in the car. They come to break the car. Yeah. Yeah. Why would they do that? Because they're lunatics. And it represents technology. That's the real story here. The real story is the very deep disdain for technological progress. And the second story I think but so important is the total lack of assumption of risk generally in the US which limits progress in meaningful ways. Let me just pull up some data that I shared here. So Nick if you pull up this first chart, I'll give you guys some numbers. For every hundred million miles driven in the US there's about one and a half deaths car accident deaths.

51:35There's about 3 .2 trillion miles driven per year in the US. So about 45 ,000 people die from auto accidents each year. This is a crazy number. 2 .3 million people have auto accident related injuries in the US each year. And there's 6 million car crashes each year in the US. That's one crash for every half million miles driven. Pretty, you know, incredible statistics. So if you look at this chart, it kind of shows the car fatalities over time. Now, what's the leading cause of car fatalities? We'll go to the next chart. Shracted driving number one. I should have I should have done this as a quiz number one DUI Jesus that is unbelievable that even today.

52:17Yeah number two speeding Not using your seatbelt so far away all three of those are the same Yeah, all so 80 % of those 80 % of deaths are DUI speeding and seatbelt non use now go to an autonomous driving world Those are all opt -in. So now go to an autonomous driving world. You won't see DUIs. Those things are programmed to not speed. Obviously, they're not going to run if you don't put your seat belt on. And then the fourth one is distracted driving. The real question is what incremental accidents or what incremental errors do autonomous cars make that might kind of cause new deaths or new accidents.

52:54But the net is that we have an incredible number of car accidents, 6 million accidents a year, two and a half million injuries a year, 45 ,000 deaths a year, most of which can be prevented by things that are just basic human stupidity. The first three are all opt -in. So what you're saying is Warren Buffett and Geico are probably responsible for lobbying and creating this mess in San Francisco. Do the insurance companies even need to exstate Chema? Conspiracy corner. Well, I actually think there's a very different driver for why these things. So I just want to make the case first off that if you zoom out and you don't take the anecdotal story of the woman trapped under the cruise car, it's an awful story.

53:34But that anecdote allows people to heighten their fear and heighten their emotion and create a response to autonomous driving as if that is a cause of a problem. So if you zoom out and you ask the question, dude, 50 ,000 people that you're dying because of human stupidity that we can just completely take off the streets, it's such a no -brainer that this technology should progress. And I'll give you guys another story. In 1999, there was the clinical trials for gene therapy had begun. And there was a guy named Gelsinger. He was a young kid. I think he was 18 or 19 years old. And he passed away from the gene therapy.

54:09And it turns out that there was actually doctor malpractice that was primarily responsible for his death. After that happened, the FDA and the regulator stepped in and they basically put a halt to all gene therapy clinical trials for about seven years. The number of lives that were lost during that seven years that went on that we did not make progress on getting gene therapy programs to market is significantly higher than the number of people that would have lost lives which by the way it turns out when you go back to this This particular death was driven by doctor malpractice not by the gene therapy technology Necessarily itself and a lot of the stuff was understood and I think we've heard Peter Tiel and others speak a lot about how the US has lost our appetite for risk We say that if anyone dies or if any bad thing happens, a new technology should not progress.

54:58But when we look at the benefit of new technology relative to the cost of it, many of these technology should progress at an accelerated pace, not at a decelerated pace. And the stepping in to stop these things from moving forward because number one, we're rootly afraid of new technology. Number two, we kind of want to, there's a lot of regulatory capture and in -compensy that wants to see these things not succeed. I think we're really denying ourselves in many cases the opportunity to realize progress because we're so concerned about any loss. Nuclear fission is a really great example of this.

55:30Three -mile island accident and Fukushima, you know, if you look at the total number of lives loft and there's incredible statistics which I should probably not pull off the top of my head. I should probably make sure I get the right numbers. But Chernobyl is another good example. If you look at the total number of incremental cancers and the total number of lives that were lost from Chernobyl, you look at three mile island, you look at Fukushima. You can make a statistical argument that even with those extraordinary cataclysmic disasters, the number of lives that could have been improved, the number of lives that could have been saved, the progress that people could have been, could have made, the number of people that could have been pulled out of poverty if we made cheap abundant energy available at an accelerated pace rather than a decelerated pace, it could have had a much more significant effect.

56:15So I view this in the lens, this autonomous driving backlash in the lens of what we see with a lot of new technologies, which is we lose our appetite for risk. We lose our tolerance for any sort of incremental loss. And we lose perspective on the fact that that loss is far, far, far outweighed relative to the gains that you gain if you can get that technology into market faster, not slower. And I think that's just such a real kind of storyline that's not told very often about how technology and progress is limited, particularly in the modern age, because once you have enough stuff, you're not willing to take as much risk.

56:49Meanwhile, you see China building 450 nuclear fission stations and the US building done. And I think that that's part of the story of where the US is today. I mean, I know that was a big rant, but for me, I'm just like so sensitive to this stuff, you know, like all of this like anti -tech stuff and anti -progress stuff, because you then pick an anecdote and you focus on the anecdote and you miss the bigger fucking picture. Well, what's so funny about San Francisco is it's the city that both is the first to approve the testing of it and then where there's a small fraction of citizens who try to go in sabotage it.

57:23I guess the next issue is how close are we to having these at scale cruises currently in San Francisco, Austin and Phoenix, Waymo, very expensive cars, by the way, they're currently in San Francisco and Phoenix, 24 -7, they're going to launch an LA soon, and Tesla has been working on this. You know what's another example of this? SpaceX, some shrapnel got blown into the uninhabited desert lands around Boca Chica, Texas. You're talking about starship? Yeah, starship. The big one, yeah. And they come in and they're like, shut the whole thing down. You can't have shrapnel flying around. Think about the risk tolerance equation here.

58:01So if you delay SpaceX by six months to make sure that shrapnel doesn't fly through the desert, That's six months longer until humans can perhaps inhabit the moon, go to Mars, do all these extraordinary things. This is what I mean about the lack of tolerance for risk. We have to assume that there is a cost in moving things forward. There has to be a cost in progress. You don't go fight a war and try and move the front lines of a battlefield further into the enemy territory and assume you're going to have no loss. And all of human progress needs to be thought about in a similar way. We have to have some degree of loss and some tolerance for risk as we try and make progress with our species and Technology always is going to have setbacks.

58:46It's always going to have mistakes But if the net benefit far outweighs those mistakes We have to be willing to accept it and gets everyone to kind of take a broader perspective on what we're doing That this isn't just about maintaining status quo and not getting hurt This is about the great benefits we get from moving things forward and we've lost that in such a But profound way over the last 50 years in Western culture. Another great example of this to add to your tie -rate is challenge trials. These have been banned for a long time. If you don't know what a challenge trial is, you introduce something like let's say COVID into a person who has had a COVID vaccine.

59:24And yeah, they're assuming some risk in doing this, but if it was a young person, as we saw, probably wouldn't be that much risk. And there are people who would do it. And there are this whole concept of challenge trials could reduce in the long term a massive amount of debts But it's not allowed because of ethics issues What do your thoughts on that free bird challenge trials? I mean it's look I there's so many examples we could just keep going through this and from energy markets and nuclear Technology to biotechnology to space technology to I've lived it I mean like GMO technology and bioengineering and food systems there's a fear and a concern.

59:58And like Rob Henderson said at our summit, I've always viewed those to be luxury beliefs that this idea that I don't wanna have my precious things changed. When the benefit really accrues mostly to the poorest people in the world. The people that can't afford it. Because that's an important point that people don't realize. When you make things more productive, whether it's an acre of land to make more food or a unit of energy and the cost comes down per unit of energy, Those of us who already have a lot of stuff and have all of our basic needs met, we have housing, we have shelter, we have food, we have energy, we can afford it, we live in a great environment, we live in a place that we can do whatever the heck we want anytime we want.

1:00:36We don't care if the price goes up by 30%. I'm happy to go down to Whole Foods and feel good to plop down an extra 50 % to buy an organic banana. Someone who only makes $8 ,000 a year cares very deeply about that cost delta. They need to see the cost of food go down, the cost of energy go down, the cost of medicine go down, the improvement that's driven by technology and has been for 10 ,000 years, mostly accrues to the poorest people in society first. Well, that's the problem. And so we all who are in charge, those of us who are rich, who are elite, who have power, who have control, who have influence, who run the fucking government, we all get to raise our hand and say, I don't want to take any more risk, because one person died.

1:01:18Meanwhile, a million people are starving to death over the next three months. And you can make that same story, and you can connect those dots in every area of technology that humans have lost their risk tolerance for in the wealthy industrialized West. And we are largely, I think, not just in hurting ourselves because of the economic costs and all the other stuff that's going on that we're now seeing as very apparent, but we're also limiting the intelligence and the energy to make technology and progress it that could benefit the whole world, we're limiting its ability to diffuse. And I think it's really profoundly sad.

1:01:55And I hope that we one day look back at this era as almost like a pseudo -dark ages and we wake the f*** up someday and recognize that we need to take some degree of reason, have some tolerance for making progress. All right, listen to me, I'm not. It's a family problem. I'm a little bit of a little. I'm kind of a little passionate about the whole anti -tech stuff. Hey, we like it. We like it. Listen, 35 people died building the Golden Gate Bridge, right? Like, the people wanted to see that progress. People took risk. That's it. No risk, no reward. To that point, I think it took two years to create the Bay Bridge and 17 years to do the repair to it.

1:02:29I mean, that's how crazy it's gotten. Two billion dollars to build those suicide nets on the side of the Golden Gate Bridge and some fraction of that to build the whole friggin' bridge. Yeah. And even on a dollar adjusted basis, it's ridiculous. It's always five. It's interesting you said a 550 million to build the bridge in US dollars and then yeah, it was the same amount to build the Annets so The question about the cruise thing so do you believe that cruise will have a good solution to self -driving? I'm just like a little bit skeptical are they owned by GM now? Yeah But didn't they raise money from soft bank isn't there some like Independent funding as well that happened.

1:03:04I thought it was sold to GM I'm just like part of it was sold to GM And then they set it up as a sub and they like like Alphabet did with Waymo Alphabet raised five billion and outside money in the Waymo And I think that crews or GM tried to do the same thing where they've got soft bank and a bunch of institutional investors in crews It's matured I'm pretty sure that's right. Yeah, it was spun out because GM didn't have the ability to bankroll it It's obvious that these are getting there the question is is I think it's more like 10 years before this is fully deployed I'll see you have to build all the cars if Elon on does get out this Robo Taxi vehicle for 25k, which he seems like as well on the way with the Model 3 to getting to.

1:03:41This was an early mockup from Walter Isaacson's book, which looks pretty sharp and it doesn't have, it's like a two seat car. So these things zipping around San Francisco, et cetera, at a reasonable speed 25, 35 miles an hour, I think is pretty close to having this. I use the self -driving beta, full self -driving FSD. I use it all the time. I used to only use it on highways. Now I use it on side roads. I disengage it when it's on roads that are not clearly marked. Have you guys taken a cruise or a Weimo road? I haven't taken either. I got invited to the beta though for cruise. You guys want to take a look?

1:04:23Personally, I would not trust the cruise ride. I don't believe they're responsible for this accident as it turns out, but I'm just skeptical that some of these initiatives are going to pan out. I think Tesla is getting it. Why are you skeptical? Yeah. I think it's a hard problem to solve and I'm just dubious about GM's ability to develop tech at this level of sophistication. You and Tesla will get there. I think Tesla is already there. Well, if an autonomous Tesla drove up and picked you up, would you do that? Would you take a ride to that? I mean, not today, but I mean, when they get there, which I don't think will be 10 years, I mean, it seems like Tesla is this way out of everybody else.

1:05:01Timoth, what do you think? Where do you think the tech is? I think this is an inference problem for Tesla and it's a learning problem for everybody else. So, I think in order to build level 5 autonomy, you have to have good reasoning. And I think in order to have good reasoning, you just need to have enough training data where you literally see every potential branch and node in a decision tree. And so, it's one thing to be able to scan a light, know that it's green and then go forward. But when you multiply that by every intersection, every light in every city, it's a massive, massive learning problem.

1:05:33So the thing that GM and crews don't have, in my opinion, is a path to acquire enough data to be credible. Could they solve a limited set of streets in San Francisco? Yeah. Yes. And so if you have the city sort of block off certain parts of the neighborhoods and say, no more human driven vehicles in these sections, only these three or four licensed providers can be inside of it, I think that crews and Waymo could work. But if you're going to live in a world where there's autonomy, meaning like humans can drive wherever they want, I think Tesla is the only one because I think they've acquired and they are acquiring so much training data that for them, they're fine tuning reasoning.

1:06:18And it's exactly what Jason just described. Jason is a perfect example of a consumer now who has adopted it, call it 70 % of his use cases and is incrementally kind of like getting towards 90 % or 95 % and I think that that's impressive. I would agree with Jason. I use FSD 100 % on the highways and depending on where I'm going. So like this weekend when I came to David your house, Saksis House, full FSD the whole way. Yeah, two way 101. It's bullet proof. Bulletproof and then in the city. Yeah. and navigating to get into David's house. I thought it was pitch perfect. And there was one or twice where, actually the person that's panicking and disengaging FSTs, like intersections, right?

1:07:04Left turns. And also just on the highway, like I get a little skittish at times if it speeds up or whatever. My point is Tesla is so close to it. So I do trust that they'll have a credible solution in the next four or five years. And these other companies, I think, that they need to have a solution for training and I don't see it. Yeah, the point is there's over a million cars recording because when you buy a Tesla, you turn on self -driving. It's in every car and so every car is recording data all the time as opposed to GM. GM doesn't take the time to put the $10 ,000, $20 ,000 package. Half a million new sensors, collecting millions of miles, a quarter.

1:07:44A quarter being added to the network. Exactly. What Tesla did years and years ago is even before self -driving was a thing, they put all the cameras in the cars to collect the data. And you're right. GM doesn't do that. If GM did that to their legacy gas cars and then funneled that into cruise, I think they would have a decent shot, but they are not doing that. Here's a map of Waymo in, and I brought this up because I think there's two different strategies going on here. Tesla is going for the whole Mugilla, they want to be able to do dirt roads you've never been on. Waymo and crews are working from constrained areas that they can perfect.

1:08:20Phoenix is the perfect area because that's a grid -based system, very wide highways, and it was planned. If you have a planned community, it's not like a city in Italy or France where the roads have been there for 800 years. When you have some modern city where it's a grid -based system, Austin falls into this as well for a large portion of Austin. It's going to be fairly easy to do those. That's what we'll see. My prediction is we'll see this. Also, it's very flat and obviously no hills and also weather. The northeast will be the last place. When you go to Boston or you're in other places that don't have a grid -based system and you have ice and snow, this stuff is 10 plus years out.

1:09:02But in a dry place with consistent weather like California Phoenix, etc. It's now. right? It's now, I think. Okay, in Bill Gurley's regulatory capture corner, we have an interesting story about JSX. If you don't know Jet Suite X, that's what the JSX stands for. This is an airline that offers hop -on public charter flights out of FBOs, tiny airports usually reserved for private jets. And they give passengers the private jet experience for the cost of roughly a first class ticket at major airlines, maybe double the cost of a coach ticket, 700 bucks one way from Westchester to Miami, 1400 miles around Trip, not a bad deal.

1:09:44By comparison, United on the same day are between 5800 for first class from Newark to Miami. Jetsuitex has 47 airplanes with 1200 crew members. Let me cut in and give you my anecdote. On Saturday, I took a JSX flight from Vegas to Oakland. What were you doing in Vegas? I went to the opening night of the YouTube concert at the sphere opening night at the sphere at the incredible. Yeah, the sphere. I looked at the photos in the video as I wasn't super impressed. Is it impressive in person because it didn't come across in the videos? Yeah, it's incredible. You got to go see it. I think it's incredible.

1:10:19How? So it's the first like live experience that I think you have kind of live analog elements like a band and this incredibly immersive digital experience because it's a 360 foot tall dome and the entirety of the interior of the dome is a digital screen. So there were these scene shapes that they created that were like dynamic video on these walls that it's hard. I don't think the video is due to justice. Like when you're actually justice. Yeah. When you're in this room during this shot right here and I was kind of sitting center, I was also I went down on the floor floor. Looks like you're in the dasager or something.

1:10:55It's like you're in this world and they even did these amazing integrated scenes where they had like helicopters flying overhead and then they had spotlights coming out of the ceiling while the helicopters were flying in the video above you. They did like a hot air balloon flying above you and they dropped like a rope down. So it was this total integration of like physical and virtual content. And I think like you too to be honest as great as the concert was is almost like the most boring thing you could probably do with that setup. Over time, you could probably integrate a lot more things. You could have giant sets and giant scenes and people, you know, doing stuff physically.

1:11:34A Star Wars movie. Star Wars movie. In real life, you could have the siege of Carthage and you could have ships on the ground and then you could see the battle scene behind you and you'd be like in the middle of it. The whole thing was really incredible. What about the sound? I heard about the sound. Hundreds of speakers. So when I was down on the floor. I went right by the stage on the floor. The sum of the sound is actually distorted down there and it's not that good. When you're in the seats that set back where the sound is really designed, hundreds of speakers like built into the wall. I heard each seat.

1:12:04There's seat speakers but really it comes from the dome and the dome sound when you're sitting in the seats is really like immersive and incredible. Okay, so you took Jetzoo X back. And then I took Jetzoo X. By the way, my prediction on this fear, I think there'll be like dozens of these things soon enough because this can become like a new form of live entertainer. It's not just a stage where someone stands on it. It's a new model and more than musical artists. I think you'll see like new kinds of art and new kinds of things happening on these things. Anyway, it's also video on the outside. So you can do advertisements or make it look like a pumpkin or make it look like a basketball.

1:12:39I saw that. And then we'll get cheaper and cheaper over time. The first one was what? Two, two and a half billion dollars. They'll make smaller versions of it. It'll be a couple hundred million. It's almost like I'm the X -Feeder. It's the roll amount all over. So back to Jetsuitex. 240 bucks, you drive up just like an FBO, like a private terminal, drive up, walk in, no security, no lines, no check -in, get on, get off. It's like flying a... Wait, that has to be some check -in so they know your name and stuff. Yeah, then you walk up and they give them the ticket and then they do a gate side check -in, they take your bag and they put it all, they take it under the plane.

1:13:11See, save an hour on either half hour. Oh my God, dude, it's so fast. That's all free, it's ridiculous. And like when my mom comes to visit, she takes it. She loves it. But obviously it's got to be some catch. I don't really know these regs, but there's some catch I'm not able to get this. I'll explain that now. So they have 47 airplanes, 1200 crew members, American and Southwest and several major aviation unions are choosing JSX of exploiting a regulatory loophole that they can hire pilots who are too old to fly for commercial airlines and who don't have the requisite 15 hour, 1500 hours of flying experience because they are a smaller airline.

1:13:48JetSuiteX says it's captain's average over 8 ,000 flying hours. And first of all, it's average over 3 ,000 flying hours. So they're blowing past the regulation. So that's obviously a red herring. According to JetSuiteX, two huge US airlines and their labor unions want companies like JetSuiteX, small air carriers that actually care about providing you with much needed choice and high quality service to be legislated out of existence. And by the way, JetSuiteX has a couple of the other airlines, I think, united as an investor. So the other airlines actually want this. They're obviously, is it difference in security?

1:14:23The one difference is not how many hours the pilots have, obviously. It's going through TSA. So the ability to not go through TSA is such a key part of this experience. And to not go through a big terminal, JetBlue and United support JSX. And I think they're exploring doing this themselves. So regulatory capture had its best, I guess. I'll take the unpopular side of this. I think it's easy to blame this regulatory capture bogeyman here. I think JetSuiteX seems like an amazing service. It has Starlink, a bunch of my friends have taken it. They seem to enjoy it a lot. But here is the clever arbitrage that JetSuiteX is taking, which is that they fly under what's called Part 135 of the FAA, and that is when you take a private plane and you charter it.

1:15:14The airlines fly under what's called Part 121, and the rules are very different if you're 121 versus Part 135. The biggest rule is the training of the pilots, which is that there are minimum hour requirements to be a commercial airline pilot, which is about 1500 hours, versus 250 hours for Part 135 charter pilot. So, I think the question is, is that it's one thing where you charter a plane with two or three of your friends. That's a part 135 license in a small plane. But when you take a large plane with nobody else you don't know, I think there's a pretty credible argument that that's a commercial airline.

1:15:54And I do think that it's reasonable that if you're running a commercial airline through a loophole, at some point if you get big enough that loophole is going to be obvious enough that people will ask it to be closed. I think what you want to have is this loophole closed or you decide that part 135 where there are so many people, the pilots should be at a certain flight training standard. And to Jets Redex's defense, they reported their competence average over 8 ,000 flying hours. So that is a magnitude more 5x, more than five times the rules and first office average over 3 ,000. So why not just up that number of hours to 500 or 1 ,000?

1:16:34Or just make everybody 15 or just your point. Just like say go to the FAA and say, look, we're going to continue to fly part one 35. But here are the except we promised to never hire a pilot that is not under this 1 ,500 hour threshold, etc. There's all kinds of ways to go around it. But I do think it's important to acknowledge that they're basically running a united. Yes. But they're pretending that it's a private plane. And I think that there are. United. Yeah, it's a mini United. Yeah, somewhere between the two. No, because United runs those regional legs as well. Yeah, in in equivalent sized planes.

1:17:05So I do think it should exist. I just think that it should exist on a relatively level playing field. I don't want somebody else to use a loophole, so I would not want them to use a loophole either. Part 135 exists. I'm actually in agreement to take a private plane in charter, not to run an airline. All right, everybody. This has been another amazing episode of the All in Podcast. Thank you to from his fear of influence David Freiburg, the Sultan of science and the Rainman himself hot water burn baby David Sacks and the dictator himself. from off Polly Hopper team. Love you boys. Hi, yep. The world's greatest moderator and you'll see you next time, bye -bye.

1:17:45Bye -bye. Bye -bye. Well, let your winners ride. Bring man David Saquette. I'm going to win. And it said we opened source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, West. I squeed a kiss. I'm going to win. What, what, what, what, what, what, what, what? Besties are gone, go thrifty. That's my dog taking it away. She's driving away. She's in the back. Wait, I don't know. Oh, man, my hamlety ass will meet me at Blitz. We should all just get a room and just have one big hug, George, because they're all just like this sexual tension, but we just need to release that out. What, your B, what, your B?

1:18:29B, B, what? We need to get my B. I'm going all in!

1:18:39I'm going all in!