E173: Google buying HubSpot? FTX depositors not made whole, AI job fears, Ukraine joining NATO

27:44I'm not a shareholder. Here's the quarterly revenue growth on a year -over -year basis. A stock chart, Yada Yada. Chimath, I guess this is something we've been talking about here, which is M &A and M &A being pushed into the coal plunge and being frozen. And now we see something like this. What do you take from this? In fact, it's a true report. I mean, I think it's a bit of an odd acquisition. And the reason is that it's become pretty clear for all of Big Tech that any acquisition that they do is going to be highly scrutinized. And so just from an EV, expected value perspective, if you're going to try to acquire something and spend the next year beating your head against regulators, why not do it for something that's really valuable?

28:28And I would not characterize HubSpot as strategically valuable for Google. I think it's an important ecosystem player and it's probably better off as an independent company. So if I were Google, I'd be trying to buy something much more useful like perplexity or something. Freeberg, your thoughts on this? First of all, it's super impressive. HubSpots have been public. They went public at about a billion dollar market 10 years ago and today they're trading at 34 billion. So, organic lead developed this business and they provide marketing automation software. So basically things like CRM tools, email marketing tools.

29:02So when you use advertising tools and you generate leads, those leads come in. What do you do with them? So let's say you're running a website that sells bicycles. people want information on bicycles. What do you do with those people after they get information on your website? And how do you track them down? And how do you sell them a bicycle? If you're a big enterprise software company, and you start to get companies reaching out to you through your website, how do you then convert them? So you use CRM tools, customer relationship management tools, sales forces, obviously a behemoth in the space, but HubSpot has this integrated marketing automation and CRM platform for taking leads and then converting those leads and selling products to them.

29:43So the sales team and the marketing team uses HubSpot software to operate and do their work and do it better. When I worked at Google in 2005, the main thing I worked on is how do we do a better job taking our advertisers and giving them more tools that they can then convert the leads that they're getting into customers. And so one of the first things I worked on in 2004 and then we closed the deal in 2005 was acquiring Urchin which became Google Analytics so that companies could better track how folks were converting on their website after they spend marketing dollars on Google. How do you see where those people go on your website and what they're actually doing on the website and ultimately make your website better so you can sell more products and more software.

30:29And one of the things I worked on was CRM. So I had this conversation with the executive team with Larry and Sergey and others at that time and we talked about Which should we buy a CRM company and we actually had a conversation they did with Mark Benioff at the time and we talked about Is there a way to buy sales force and sales force went public shortly before Google and it was more Richly valued than I think the appetite was at the time to make this leap to buying a CRM company We actually spent quite a bit of time meeting with and I personally spent time meeting with NetSuite Which ultimately got rolled in I think it was a Larry Ellison was the primary owner of NetSuite We looked at a few other CRM companies and this was always meant to be the next solution that you plug in to the advertising platform at Google You get all these leads from advertising and how do you convert those leads and make them customers and many of the other things we looked at were things like checkout software and software that would let you run a website to sell your products to customers on the website.

31:28Which became Shopify. Which became Shopify. And we had looked very deeply at doing this at Google is actually building a product called Google checkout. It wasn't very successful, but it was to do exactly this, which is to build a basically a Shopify type competitor. And so this has always been the natural fit for Google's business. Google made a quarter trillion dollars last year in advertising revenue. And they didn't make much revenue after the advertising generated leads, because Google doesn't have a great commerce business and they don't have any of these other enterprise tools. So this is a very natural fit into Google's advertising business and taking all of the leads from advertising and better converting them and giving your sales team the tools they need to convert those leads into customers.

32:13So it makes great strategic sense. It's been a concept that's been around for 20 years at Google. Certainly they're going to face regulatory scrutiny, but it doesn't have the same sort of overlap with the ad network businesses because they're not very heavily in the ad network business at HubSpot, but it's a really good kind of enterprise offer plug -in. Some would say acquisitions are one of three types. They are defensive. They are offensive or they are about reinforcing the status quo. If you had to bucket HubSpot into one of those three things, Is this an offensive M &A? Is it a defensive M &A or is this status quo?

32:49I think it gives advertisers more tools that can integrate with AdWords, which is how advertisers spend ad dollars is through AdWords platform. And so as a result, it locks the advertisers on to Google's ad platform, keeps them in exchange. And so I think that the benefit to Jamal's point is that they're going to both protect Act ad revenue at Google by locking in people on the CRM side. And the marginal impact they'll get from selling CRM services, not that impactful to the business. I mean, if you could spend, let's say, with the premium $50 billion on HubSpot, or $5 billion on perplexity, today, which one would you buy?

33:33I think you've got to buy HubSpot. You're protecting, to your point, you're protecting a quarter trillion dollar ad business. HubSpot makes two billion in revenue. So it's 1 % of the size of Google's ad business and it helps you lock in some percentage of that 250 billion so that's an important strategic acquisition. I think for Google so you'd rather buy something in marketing automation versus AI I think they should spend the money in AI, but I think you have to buy something to Hmm it's a good question to further the revenue. Yeah, what does Google accomplish here that they couldn't do with an integration?

34:07a partnership, you mean? Well, I mean, they could just build on HubSpot's platform, just create a connector between Google ads and HubSpot. I think that exists already, actually. Exactly. So what's the point? What do you mean? What do you mean? I think what Friedberg is saying in nicer languages, they're going to make it a Roach Motel. Lockin. You get in and you can't get out. I mean, it gives you the full -life cycle of the advertiser sac. So, I mean, you understand the funnel, right? You get the actual profile of the customer. Yeah, the problem with the Roach Motel M &A strategy is that people sniff that out pretty quickly.

34:39Then they start to carve out these very discrete parts of the product that they want you to divest in order to get the whole thing done. That's the thing that surprisingly, I think the regulators have gotten smart about. And I suspect it's not that the regulators themselves know these discrete ideas, but that the answers are fed to them by competitors who want to just slow these processes these down and make these things convoluted and complicated. Oh, they snitch. They send the snitch in. I think it's very smart for a competitor to actually call a regulator and give them a roadmap of how to make the deal happen, but in a very convoluted, complicated way.

35:15You remember, I suspect that's what happened in Microsoft Activision, Microsoft really had me flotted off. And so they were able to get the whole thing done completely on their terms. But in many other cases, you get these discrete things where It's like, okay, divest this, sell that, keep this. And it's like, why are we doing this? But I just think the Roach Motel strategy is harder to get done these days because folks will know how to make it super convoluted. I will tell you, when a big company like this makes a big acquisition offer like this, as much as I know Google's business, I think it's a generalization that can be drawn here.

35:51It's usually a negative signal about organic growth, Meaning, if I'm a Google shareholder, I should look at this and I should say, why do you need to make this acquisition? Why is there an indication in this bid that there is some advertising revenue leakage going on? And then I should go spend time trying to understand that. I think there's a really important question there. Yeah. But this is why I'm asking you, like, obviously they're not going to do this because things are going perfectly in that space. And so if you're losing share, you're not going to be losing it to Bing. or losing it to some form of AI, which is why, again, it's a bit of a headscratcher, spend a lot less money in just by everything in the space, or spend 50 billion and buy everything possible in the space.

36:33To give you just a little context here, this is going to be by far their largest acquisition. If it's true, if it gets closed, this is all speculation right now. Looking back, motor roll and mobility was bought for 12 .5 billion. There were patents, there was the hardware business, which they spun out. You can look up the deal details there. But there's a long tail of companies they've bought Nest Labs, Fitbit and YouTube, $3 billion, $1 .6 billion if you remember, they bought a Mandient, I've never even heard of the Cybersecurity Company, $5 .4 billion. They bought Nest for $3 billion, double click $3 billion, that was a long time ago, so you probably triple that value in today's dollars.

37:08By the way, remember Fitbit took 18 or 24 months to close? It took a while, yeah. Deeply scrutinized. If you think a wearable on your wrist is going to get scrutinized when bought by Google, imagine what happens when a $50 billion marketing automation company gets bought by Google. Yeah, but really interesting. Look, I don't think this acquisition makes any sense. I'm kind of in Jamás Camp. This would be a very odd acquisition. I'm not even sure the story is true. There's been no confirmation of an actual bid made. This was basically an anonymous source saying that Google had hired investment bankers to maybe kick the tires.

37:42Well, typically these bankers float these proud balloons like this because they want to pump the deal But yeah, imagine what the fees would be on $50 billion acquisition But like to my side buyers loose. Yeah, when they have these Auctions well look it's gonna be very hard for any big tech company to do a $50 billion acquisition of anything Just that given that Lena Conn of the FTC are opposed to bigness in and of itself But I think from a strategic point of view I agree this deal would be odd I don't really see the connection to the Google ads business. HubSpot is used by companies to manage their pipelines.

38:18It's a competitor to Salesforce. I see it all the time. I see startups using it all the time as the alternative to Salesforce because it's sort of easier to use more user -friendly. And the main thing it does is you have your pipeline in there. You bring in the leads at the top of the funnel, and then you work them down to closed deals. Where do those leads come from, Sacks? I understand that they can come from Google AdWords, but most of them come from from ad spend. That's the connection and it's always been this idea that those two should be integrated. Okay, but the point is that if you think about your top of funnel, if you're one of the customers of Houseabout using this, Google AdWords is just one of a number of channels.

38:59Yeah, that's right. So you could be getting your leads through inbound. You could be getting your leads through events. So you could be getting your leads through, I mean, there's so many different sources. So, it doesn't make sense to me that somehow Google would need to acquire a company to manage not their advertisers, but the people their advertisers are trying to reach as one of a dozen different potential marketing channels. It just doesn't really make sense. I mean, the acquisitions where Google's been really successful have been broad, horizontal platform plays like Android. This is as vertical as it gets.

39:36This is CRM software. This is basically Google getting into a vertical app for sales and marketing teams. Yeah. I have a CRM. If you think about the business that this is most like, it would be G Suite. And because it's an enterprise play. And that's the most neglected part of Google's business. I think you're both missing a key piece to this. I think this is about the data. you look at these. These are the leads and the great contacts in the database of the customer, which Google doesn't have access to, and they can close the loop and they can make targeting of ads and get people deeper and they can fight for a larger percentage.

40:13So to your point, SACs, yes, you've got 20 different inbound feeds coming in for leads. If Google knows the leads that are already in there, they can then retarget them across their entire ad network, which is the largest in the world. That's the value. If I know you're 10 ,000 best customers, and then I know when they're on Google searching and I know when they're in a Chrome browser, I know when they're on an Android phone, if they happen to use that, man, I can just start getting more of your ad dollars into it. That's what's actually happening here. They don't want to SaaS business, they want the data, they want to retarget folks, and then they want to make close more sales and be more efficient than TikTok and Facebook and Meta.

40:50It's about easy. Do you think they'll be allowed to use their customers' data to somehow target their ad product? Absolutely. 100%. If I'm opting into it and I say, hey, you have 10 ,000 people in your database. You want to go find them. You have 8 ,000 of them connected that came in through Google search. What about the other 12 ,000? You want to try to find them in the Google Ad Network? We can put that together for you. That's actually, if somebody's going to snitch on this deal, it's about the data. I'll tell you back in just improving conversion rates drives more ad revenue. And the key measurement we had the year after we bought Urchin and launched Google Analytics was we looked at how much an advertiser spent on Google's AdWords network before and after they installed Google Analytics.

41:33And that year, it was a ton of money at the time. We saw an incremental, roughly $500 million in revenue in ad spend with folks who installed Google Analytics from before versus after because they then started to change their websites and tweet their sales flow or their marketing flow on their website to better convert customers so they could spend more on the network because higher conversion rates means you can spend a higher CPM on advertising. So the deeper you go from an integration perspective and closing sales, the better you actually can get and the more money you can spend on marketing on the front end.

42:09And so that benefits the growth in the network. And to build on your point, Freberg, This is why Amazon and Uber and Instacart have become such major players in advertising. They have the data on sales information, they sell conversion. They sell conversions at the point, sacks of the shopping cart about to be clicked on. And Amazon's been taking some of that and Instacart, but intercepting some of those ads. I'll speculate on this for a second. I think that if I'm sitting inside of Google, So I see the capability of our AI tools, our generative AI tools in being able to improve marketing and sales processes.

42:47And I'm saying, how do we leverage that? Well, guess what? We don't actually have access to our advertiser sales and marketing automation workflow because we don't have a CRM tool. So then the natural strategic thing is, how do we get a CRM tool? Okay, well, we can't buy sales force. Well, we can buy HubSpot. That makes sense. Number two. So then we could apply our generative AI capabilities to improve conversion efficiency in HubSpot and probably grow revenue there as well So it could be a fairly quickly a creative deal and there's the benefit to the ad network I think the Roach Motel idea is probably the best Strategy here.

43:20Yeah, you're right. I just think I would if I were them with $50 billion there What like 30 billion by the way 35 He's got to pay 50 % more 25 % more. It's already floated up. So you got to imagine it's probably a $40 billion deal. Yeah Yeah, okay, 40. Yeah, okay. So they saved 10 billion. I think the synergies here are negligible. If it took Google almost two years to get an accelerometer on a risk to prove from antitrust, this is going to take three years. Sax. Yeah. So why bother? So like do something much more disrupt? I have an answer to that, but I want your Sax. It's for a spend. Well, I just looked up how many customers HubSpot has.

43:55HubSpot has 205 ,000 customers as of the end of 2023. Now you look at Google AdWords. It has 1 .2 million businesses. Okay, and I'm sure that's not 100 % overlapping. Every one of them should be using HubSpot. That's hugely creative. Hi, agree. Yeah. I don't think that Google has the leverage to drive all of its adware customers into using a serum product. It doesn't need all of them. If it gets 5 % of them, it makes this deal make sense. Hmm. Interesting. That part is kind of interesting. If they can actually drive their ad customers. What they did with DoubleClick. Double click was actually advertised.

44:29No, but they had other places that they could take their adverts advertisers to spend that the Double Click Network had access to. Anyway, I hear you. Yeah. And there was another set of advertising on a management tool that Double Click had that's an enterprise software tool that they were able to sell into their advertisers that they didn't have themselves. Let me ask you a markets question here. If we wind up with a Republican, conservative, GOP presidency and administration for the next four years, which seems like a possibility here, a strong possibility. What does that do for M &A markets?

45:01Do you think they might be opening up here? And the reason Google's even considering this is because they anticipate this deal might fall into a new administration that is going to fire a leonicon possibly, probably. I absolutely think that I think the Democrats and the Republicans are really well aligned here. They don't like deals and I don't think you're going to see a big sea change. They hate big tech for different reasons, but they equally want to slow them down. If you look at the non -bictech M &A deals, they're going to get slowed down for different reasons. For example, the big US deal merger with Nippon's deal that was announced, Biden has one set of issues, but I suspect if Donald Trump were to get elected, his issues will be more about further hollowing out middle America.

45:47And so that deal will probably get stopped for different reasons. But so I think that they're both actually roughly aligned and not allowing a lot of this big M &A to happen. But for different reasons. For different reasons, but the outcome is the same. So this is why I would just kind of think like if you're going to do a deal, you've got to do something that's like small enough where it'll pass muster. You know it to be really valuable and the regulators will be like, oh, whatever, just let it happen. Sachs, what do you think? You think a Trump administration would become more frisky, allow more mna they seem to be actually cozy up to tacking a major way well i agree with jamaat that there's a lot of anger on the republican side towards big tech because a censorship and bias and google is this guilty of that is any of these big tech companies so i don't expect republican administration to have google and it's good graces that being said i do think republicans have a more traditional definition of antitrust then lead a con does and i think that that a Republican antitrust enforcer would probably be guided by market share considerations first and foremost.

46:58And so in this case, since Google does not have a CRM play, then based on a traditional definition of antitrust, they would be able to make this acquisition. Whereas I think, again, Lena Conn is just opposed to bigness and doesn't want big tech companies getting any bigger. So there's no guarantee that Republicans would allow it. I would say that if you got the right FDC commissioner or right DOJ, I'd say there's a possibility of it being more likely to go through. To remind everybody, Loonacon's interpretation of antitrust is future competition and trying to protect future competition. The traditional one is consumer based.

47:34Hey, our consumer's benefiting or not. And so that's actually the top three yes, I want to have free bird. Market share is really the traditional test. Yeah market share and then the impact that has on consumer choice and price. Yeah, kind of go back on to this energy point I just want to like please I just want to brainstorm about this for a second Let's say you're one of Google's 1 .2 million businesses that are using AdWords. There's a high chance You're also using Facebook. There's a high chance. You're also doing other kinds of advertising You might be doing physical old advertising You might be doing events there might be a dozen different channels through which you get leads now all the sudden in Google sends you an email saying, hey, we acquired HubSpot.

48:15Why don't you click here to use us for CRM? Is that really going to drive a change in behavior from that small business beyond what they would already do today? It doesn't seem that synergistic to me. Some percent of them, not all, maybe 5 percent. Again, that 5 percent is 50 ,000. That's a big group.

48:35I mean, I just don't see the leverage basically. Yeah, I don't know if I agree. But I mean, that's why we're here. If Google did a deep product integration where the leads that you acquired through Google ad words magically appeared in HubSpot and that's where you went to go work them, then yes, maybe, maybe they'd be synergy. Just looking at this on the numbers, since we like to do back in the envelope here, $250 billion ad revenue, 1 .2 million advertisers, it's almost exactly like 200 ,000 per advertiser. Obviously, there's some big ones. Obviously, there's a long tail. Man, if you can get some number of those to spend 10, 20, 30 percent more, it could be quite accretive to the bottom line.

49:15It would pay for the acquisition over a short period of time. And we'll see. It's an interesting discussion for sure. All right. If you missed it, John Stuart did a segment on AI on the Daily Show. He came back. He's doing, I think, Mondays every week. And it went viral. And it was about how AI is going to change our jobs faster than any previous labor revolution. So it seems like the public is starting to get an idea about AI wiping out large swaths of jobs and it's starting to hit the mainstream. CEOs like Brian Cheskey from Airbnb and Aaron Levy from Box. I had them on this week and started up in the last year.

49:51They said they anticipate 30 to 50 % productivity gains for a lot of the jobs in their companies, developers, customer support, all that stuff. And we covered the cloneers, AI, customer support agent, doing the job of 700 full -time employees and driving a $40 million increase in profits this year. Gadi Adiata, we've talked about this over and over again, but it seems to be tipping over into public consciousness. We, Chamaath, have talked about whether humans will find more work to do, or if this is going to truly displace people, I think we all kind of feel like at least to the best of my memory.

50:21We all feel like new jobs will be created, but it is entering the public's consciousness. What impact is that going to have if the public starts thinking AI is going to take their job to mom. I mean, I think that social media will make this perception more widespread than it's been at other moments of revolution and innovation. But we've gone through this before. I'd like to summarize my thoughts in three charts. Okay. And I call this this time it's not different. So chart number one for those watching on YouTube is a look at the components of US GDP. This is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

50:59Now this goes from 1929 up to 2011. So it doesn't go all the way back to the 1800s and we're missing the last decade. But the point is the following, if you can see the chart, if you can't see it, I'll describe it to you, which is that GDP, the components of GDP are surprisingly resilient and roughly the same over long stretches of time, which is that even though GDP goes up, consumer consumption is always around 70 % net exports are a few percent plus or minus gross domestic investment is around the 20 % level and then government consumption is around the 20 % level and that's what adds up to GDP.

51:39So that's an important thing to note why? Because in the absence of something very acute like World War II, these things don't change over long periods of time. Okay, so if that is true, what happens when you have any kind of a Revolution, so let's look at the industrial revolution. So the shift from farms to factories and what you saw was Exactly what people should be worried about with respect to AI, which is in specific job classes things just fall to zero So unemployment basically went to zero and the income associated with those jobs also went to zero So this is what people are worried about But if you remember the last chart, the point is somehow we found a way to find growth.

52:24And this is what's demonstrated on this final chart, which is when you look at US productivity and worker compensation, this is going from World War II to today. You find that every time we find a new way of innovating, compensation tends to track it. So if you take these three things together, There are number one, which is the components of GDP rarely change. Number two is that yes, there are certain categories of jobs that always get disrupted away. But the third is the most important, which is that as productivity goes up, which is what AI should give us, just as we've seen in the past, compensation also goes up, which means new job classes will be created.

53:02So I think the macro picture, if you look back hundreds of years, is that this is like many other moments in time. And it feels more personal right now because we're all living it, right? And a few of us live the agrarian to industrial revolution. Yeah. We missed it. And few of us live the technological revolution, right? We kind of came in at the heels of it. But I suspect that this time is not different. Freeberg your thoughts on this. I think you've said something similar on past episodes. But it is kind of tipping into public consciousness. And it's also affecting white collar jobs this time, not just people in fields picking berries.

53:40And so those people may be a little more vocal and we've seen massive layoffs intact, massive layoffs in media. And those jobs don't seem to be coming back. People seem to be taking the gains and just having people in the team be 30 % more efficient as Brian told me on my other pod. So what do you think, Freeberg? Is this time different or is it the same? So here's this article from June 2nd, 1983 in the New York Times, all about how computers are eliminating jobs in industries that were effectively offline knowledge work industries at the time, creating engineering designs, creating architectural drawings.

54:20I think this article spoke to the fact that these jobs were going to be eliminated. And as we all know, those jobs actually got enhanced by computers. Productivity went up and new sub industries emerged. And in fact, the overall industries actually grew in some cases when we were fearful of them being replaced due to the automation enabled by software. So I think that in this particular sense, we can talk about the industrial revolution enabling through manufacturing systems and centralized production, a replacement of manual labor with machines. What we're talking about now is a replacement of knowledge work that has been aided by computers with machines.

55:01So the machines no longer even need the human. But the reality is that these systems are actually going to give humans 10 to 100x leverage. So when you think about that, one person could spend three weeks making an architectural drawing today. What if that one person could make an architectural drawing every six hours? So the question then is do we stop making architectural drawings and we fire a bunch of architects? Or does the cost of making an architectural drawing drop by 90 % and it enables us to do more detailed, higher resolution, architectural drawings across more places, more frequently, and the industry actually booms.

55:39And what we've seen historically is that when productivity goes up, costs go down, the actual volume balloons and the economy grows. So it's an example where I think in this particular case, we will see these tools creating more leverage for knowledge work instead of just simply replacing knowledge work, and And that humans will start to shift to a higher order of work and will see the economy grow and productivity go up as a result. So I think that's my kind of key read on the story, but it's very hard to connect the dots for people without having all of these historical cases. And I think one of the ways to think about doing this usefully is you go back to the software revolution and all the stuff that we were doing with pencils and papers before computers.

56:22We actually didn't lose all those jobs. The people could now do 100 times or a thousand or a million times as much work and new industries emerged and productivity went up and the economy grew. And so we just have to have this realization as this starts to take hold that the industries will change and that the systems will actually provide leverage not replacement. Yeah, it's such a good point. And I think what you teach your kids is a really important at this moment in time. Like having a job that is replaced by AI, or that could be greatly replaced by AI might be a mistake. And if you think about being a conductor freeberg or a mychreco conductor of an orchestra, I think that's the job of the future is can you work with these agents?

57:07Forget about coal pilots because that's phase one of all this. But agents are phase two where you have an agent who's writing copy who's should the hub

57:22I've been loading chatch APT with my kids constantly, asking history questions and whatever questions they want. I've been teaching them how to use chatch APT. That's great. Yeah, I mean, I think it's like, like, there's this whole transition of humans doing manual labor to doing knowledge work, where you're using software to create digital output, to now having more folks spend more time their time being conceptualists or creators where you can kind of be an architect or a creator of something and the system just generates it. You know, you state your intended objective and the system solves for it.

57:56As opposed to, hey, I got to go build the Excel spreadsheet and check the formula in every cell and do all the manual. What if I just say, hey, here's what I want the model to do, please generate it for me and you get the result. It enables you to do 100 times more. That's why I use the analogy conductor or Auguster leader. here, Sacks, what do you think? This is your, your, your, you're on the populace side. You really have your finger on what Americans think. And as a compliment, it's a literal compliment. But I do think you're, I think you've become a pop, especially as long as I've known you, you know, for over 20 years, you've become more populous.

58:31So what's the word on the street here amongst, you know, Jen pop? And I think they're taking this news when they see somebody like John Stuart, they were shocked. When you see somebody like John John Stewart, you know, doing this, that's like going to hit a large swath of these, you know, you know, elites that we've talked about before on this show who are losing their jobs or maybe their salaries are getting capped. Well, first of all, Jason, to quote Senator Grocus from Gladiator. I may not be a man of the people, but I can try to be a man for the people. Yes, exactly. So, uh, oh my god, did you see the AI?

59:05Did you see the AI from some Y Comparative Company, Or were they made a little video of us? And we're talking about somebody's nuts, and then they were like, you said, oh, I'm gonna ask my butler to ask my assistant, to ask my house manager, to then ask my chauffeur to pick those up. It's a pretty great clip. Yeah, it looks funny. Look, to be frank, no one cares what John Stewart thinks. He's never been less relevant and less funny. This is a story that the media has been hyping up for months now. COVID's over so they need something else to scare us with and They really should be talking is that we've got two wars that risk spiraling out of control And that they don't want to go there I don't want to go there or the national debt exactly right for they don't want to go there either Because not all of those issues reflect well on the current administration and power So they're going to scare us with this now look in the short to medium turn AI leads to productivity gains in the long term It may lead to job losses, but as you guys pointed out, hopefully by then we'll have lots of other jobs created by the Productivity boom that we're gonna get and this has been the case throughout history with regard to technology improvements And if we don't have these productivity improvements what's gonna drive the growth in GDP?

1:00:21What's gonna allow us to pay off this enormous national debt that seems to be? Yep, you know so large that we it's unrepairable we need the productivity gains that AI is gonna unlock without them were definitely toast. So look, I don't place a lot of stock in this John Stewart story. It's just one of many that the media is creating to try and scare us about AI. That's actually a great guest. John Stewart would be a great guest, along with Lena Conn. Put those on the list. Have you seen this clip where Jan LeCoon basically says our best out of them is 50 times smaller than what a four -year -old has processed since they've been very old?

1:00:56is a wake, it's been awake, it totaled 16 ,000 hours. And you say, okay, 16 ,000 hours, multiply this by 3 ,600 seconds per hour. And then figure out like what's the bandwidth of the optical nerve going to the cortex? It's about 20 megabytes, right? You have 1 million nerve fibers per eye, and it's about 10 bytes per second, right? Give it a take. So multiply, that's 10 to the 15 bytes, by the time you're four. or 50 times more than whatever LLM, like the biggest LLM in the world have been trained on. So what that tells you is that in the space of a few months, the baby has seen more information than the biggest LLMs that we have.

1:01:39The point is that, and this is one of the foremost experts in AI and really one of the fathers of modern AI, what he's basically saying is it's still more artificial than intelligent. And everybody needs to take a deep breath and understand that there's just gonna be a lot more work before you get to this omnipresent agent that just replaces and destroys everything and thinks on its own. Yeah. I'm willing to bet on all of us versus a bunch of four -year -olds. And I just want to say, Kumbaya, to Davos as well, with a clip from Davos, thank you for letting me choose that. Yeah, it's interesting, Saks, like the number of jobs that will be replaced or augmented and then the creation of jobs and then you start thinking about, well, how many jobs exist in the real world?

1:02:22I saw WEMO is doing Uber Eats deliveries and you just think wow more people are going to be able to afford Uber Eats It's kind of expensive to use so consumption is going to go up and then you think about the optimists and then what's the other robot company That's making a general human robot figure figure and man those are starting to get really interesting and I think that's going to be on lock So maybe you could speak a little bit too sex What do you think happens when we start getting human -eyed robots in the mix and do you have any investments in this space? I don't, because I don't do that kind of hardware R &D.

1:02:56I mean, look, I think you're right that AI does lead to robotics, because one of the hard things about robotics is just having the robot not just move, but understand what's happening in the world around it and then make the right decisions about how to react to that. And so, LLMs, to start creating a path for the robots to be able to make intelligent decisions without having to be programmed with a bunch of if -then statements, right? And I mean self -driving kind of does this too. I mean self -driving is sort of the early, it's kind of like the early prototype for these kinds of robots. And that's why it's not surprised that Tesla is developing optimists is because you think about what self -driving is.

1:03:42It's a device, a car with a whole bunch of cameras on it. it takes in all that visual information, and then it makes decisions about how to move and how to react. And then it's trained based on mirroring human decisions, all those human decisions that Tesla's been able to gather through the combination of self -driving with humans intervening, allows it to train the self -driving, I guess, brain you could say. Well, and it's also, sacs moving at two or three miles per hour so it can take its time. And if you haven't seen this figure, This combines the language model with what you're discussing, Sachs.

1:04:19So the language models, when you show them a picture, and you say, hey, and this is from figure, and there's a, this is their robot, and it says, hey, give me something to eat. Have you guys seen this before? I've heard some of the founders of these robotics companies talk about why they create robots in a humanoid shape. And it's not just because they're trying to create a replacement for humans or something like that. It's also because now they can point cameras at the way that humans move. Yes. And so they can actually train these robots on how humans move and react to things. So you're able to kind of create a large data set kind of like with self -driving so that the robots are able to learn how to move.

1:04:57And I've seen a different video where Optimus, the Tesla robot, is folding shirts. Yeah. For impressive, yeah. What's really interesting about this, Freiburg, is when I spoke to the people who are making these, evolution has made humans to operate in the world most efficiently over whatever number of years and creatures before us. So in fact, the world is optimized for the human body type. And so maybe you could talk a little bit about what you think is going to happen with these robots, Friedberg, and the short and medium term. When will we have one of these robots in our houses? What will the price point be in five to 10 years?

1:05:40And what will they be doing in five to 10 years? I don't know, we should explore that question at the only summit, 2024. Okay, shout out to Elon, Elon, can you bring Optimus to the event please? Jason, I don't think it's a five year timeframe. I think it's longer than that. That's just my guess. And one of the reasons is if you look at the use of robots in call it industrial production today, they don't want humans getting too close to them. They're actually kind of dangerous because you have these arms flying around, they move quickly, they're very heavy. You get banged on the head by one of them, it's gonna take you out.

1:06:15So, to get the idea of having a robot in your house that's capable of freely moving, you have to make that so safe to a point that they just haven't gotten to get with robots. So there's just gonna be like a lot of fine -tuning work that happens before, this is a domestic product. I think in the near term, it's all about industrial applications or maybe even military applications. But if you've ever been to the gigafactories, I was doing a little tour of one of them once, and somebody grabbed me because I almost wandered into one of those areas and they have tape on the floor, then they have a wall, etc.

1:06:50But if you even get within a certain closeness with this tape on the floor, it shuts the whole thing down because they're afraid somebody's going to get crushed behind one of these arms. Chimap, I'll give it to you. When will we have one of these robots in our homes for the price of a Prius? Now, up by the way, Prius is a car that costs about $15 ,000 that common folk drive. So $50 ,000 robot in our houses. I think it'll be less than that. I think it's gonna be in the next two or three years. You'll have a domestic help robot that you can probably pay a thousand bucks a month for. Okay. Which would be two to three.

1:07:27like a hundred thousand dollar car payment. That would be the equivalent of a car payment on a hundred thousand dollar car. So, okay, you say under five, you say three, what do you think freeberg's in bet? $1 ,000 a month robot, $100 ,000 sticker price, when we have that in our homes. No, I think it's a thousand a month, thousand a month, which would be the equivalent over whatever number of months. And what is it, it does, it's general purpose, does different stuff. General person's robot, $1 ,000 a month, 50 payments. I think it washes the dishes. I think it will do the laundry, take out the trash.

1:07:58There'll be like a whole set of household tasks that it will do. Walk the dog. No, no. Not responsible for a life creature. What do you say, Freiburg? $1 ,000 a month at home robot does your dishes. There's a great bet for us. Give us the overrunner. How many years, Freiburg? I'm not sure. I think the sold out of science, come on, man. Give us a year. Well, I don't think it necessarily follows this general purpose model. I think that there are likely going to be more narrow application ranges and they're not going to necessarily be humanoid in form factor. I don't know if you guys have seen Gecko Robotics.

1:08:41Have you guys seen this company? Are you guys investors in this? No. Pretty impressive, like, suite of autonomous products that do specific things in industrial settings. So they have robots that climb on the outside of buildings and look for cracks using special scanning equipment, but they're very autonomous and how they operate and what they can do. And they've got a whole class of robots that can then be each one of those robots can do many different tasks for many different applications. And so the form factors, they've got kind of a set of form factors, meaning a set of robots that look differently and have different capabilities of them, like little spider legs or arms or whatever.

1:09:24And then they can be applied to go do something autonomously and then they just run and they do it. If you pull that up, you'll see climbing walls, riding walls to types. Yeah, they're purpose built. Well, they're not purpose. That's what's interesting. There's sort of a narrow range of applications, but they're not specific to do only one thing. And so they can work in different environments and do different things. And so you'll kind of pick from their suite of robots, which ones you want to use to do different tasks and then they go and do it. It's really interesting. They're mostly using them for industrial monitoring applications right now, like looking on bridges for breaks and cleaning windows.

1:10:05Cleaning windows, all that kind of stuff. Oh, clean windows. That's a good one. Yeah. So they've got like a really cool suite. And I think that's what we're likely to see in domestic settings as well. All right. So you might find I'm just I'm just on your three. By the way, I will say the success of Gecko indicates that there's far more money to be made in industrial applications. And there is in consumer applications to do it. I disagree. And so these, yeah, I think every human's going to have one of these. And I think every household in America, every middle class household in America We'll have one of these thousand dollar a month robots in seven years.

1:10:39I'll give it seven you You do everything I say to do domestic chores taken out the trash Fold in laundry domestic tasks. I just think it's hard to justify that because you're only spending so many hours a week doing that sort of stuff Is it really worth a thousand bucks a month? Whereas in the industrial setting, it makes a lot more sense I think about those dangerous tasks like climbing on a bridge, checking out the seams and climbing on a building cleave in the windows. Those tasks take years to do sometimes. Mm -hmm. Many, many years of high risk human labor. Whereas taking out the trash and folding laundry might be a little bit more hard to justify this better.

1:11:17All right, some more breaking news here during the program. We'll get our work correspondent and our geopolitical expert David Sachs. What are you seeing on the wires, Zach? Well, there's a NATO meeting going on right now and Blinken did a press conference where he says that Ukraine will be joining NATO. That's the big news going viral right now. Ukraine will become a member of NATO. Our purpose at the summit is to help build a bridge to that membership and to create a clear pathway for Ukraine moving forward. So of course we believe that Ukraine deserves to be a member of NATO and that this should happen sooner rather this sooner rather than later.

1:12:02Chimap, any thoughts on this flip that just broke during the program? Well, we just, I think NATO just added Sweden, right? And it was done in pretty record time from application to admission. So I would like to know whether is this just rhetoric to just keep everybody at bay and placate the Ukrainians or is this real? The problem that this creates is that if it is real and they're admitted, then NATO has to defend Ukraine, which means that then America and all the other NATO allies would have to fight, which means that we're in a war. America should not be in a war. Just to give you the exact facts you are correct.

1:12:49Sweden -Filmland applied to join in May 2022 following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and they It had been neutral, as you know, from any decades, Finland has a massive land border with Russia, and they joined in April of 2023 after applying in May of 2002, so just a year later. And Sweden became a member in March of 2024, just two years later. F .R .S. membership was held up by both Turkey and Hungary. SACS, you are our resident expert on Ukraine and all things geopolitical? You're thoughts. On the one hand, what Lincoln is saying is more the same here, because it's been the administration's policy to seek to bring Ukraine into NATO since they took office.

1:13:30They've reiterated that over and over again. And it's one of the major reasons for this war is that the Russians said over and over again, this was a red line for them. That's why there's a war in Ukraine. The idea that you're going to be able to bring Ukraine into NATO, however, when the war is going so badly, is now entering the territory of being delusional. I mean, this is like a delusional comment. And if you just want to understand how badly things are going, look at yesterday's Politico, which was called Ukraine is at great risk of its front lines collapsing. The source for this article was high ranking Ukrainian officials close to Zoluzny, who's the former commander -in -chief.

1:14:10Some people have speculated that Zoluzny himself might be the source, but at a minimum, it's high ranking Ukrainian officers who report it to Zoluzny. And what they say in this article is that the prognosis in Ukraine is grim. They say that the sad truth is that even if the funding bill is approved by the U .S. Congress, a massive resupply may not be enough to prevent a major battlefield upset. They say that there is a great risk of the front lines collapsing wherever Russian generals decide to focus their offensive, which people expect in the next few months. And there's nothing that can help Ukraine now because there are no serious technologies able to compensate Ukraine for the large massive troops Russia is likely to hurl at us.

1:14:53This is a quote from one of the Ukrainian officials. We don't have those technologies and the West doesn't have them as well in sufficient numbers. So what they're saying is that even if the funding bill goes through the 61 billion, it's not going to be enough to save Ukraine. And at the very moment that that is now being finally, honestly reported, by Western media. It's something I've been saying now for months. Finally, the truth is coming out. You have Blinken doubling and tripling down on these comments that nevertheless Ukraine will be joining NATO. And Jamoth is right. Under Article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all.

1:15:31Therefore, if Ukraine becomes part of NATO, an attack on Ukraine by Russia, which is currently ongoing, will be concerned and attack on the United States. Then you have to add to the mix the fact that MacBrown and other European leaders have actually been advocating for NATO descending round troops. And he said this over and over again. He's doubled down on this multiple times. So you have a dynamic now where this isn't just hot rhetoric by Blinken. This really has the risk of tipping over into policy. I would say in a Biden's second term where Biden agrees to do what our European allies are already calling for.

1:16:08which is sent in NATO troops to Ukraine to save Ukraine from what Politico calls an imminent collapse. I think this is a very dangerous situation. I mean, we're really talking about here as World War III. So if you want to have a serious chance of war III in the next four years, then I would say go ahead and vote for Biden in November. I mean, this is very clear to me. I'm personally not willing to accept that risk. I'm not willing to accept a 10 % or 1 % risk of that chance. But I think Blinken putting it on the table here, I think people should be deeply concerned about this and there should be a lot of follow -up questions for Blinken and the administration about this.

1:16:44Freeberg, should the free country of Ukraine be able to join NATO on some timeline or should they be banned from ever joining NATO? I think the statements are correct that Ukraine joining NATO escalates conflict and we will find ourselves in a de facto global conflict world war. Now the question is, is that the cycle, the natural cycle? I will once again, Nick, pull it up please. Reference Radalio is typical big cycle behind empires rise in decline as he spoke at length with us in person about at the all -in -submit last year, he points out that the era of prosperity that over the last 500 years, we've seen six major empires go through, is followed by a debt bubble, which drives a wealth gap, which ultimately leads to economic challenges, which means printing more money, which is the cycle we are going through right now with a,

1:17:55as you federal debt levels and that ultimately leads inevitably to external conflict to war. Now, the particular motivations in every case, in all six times this has happened in the last 500 years, look different when you read the history books about what were the circumstances that drove us to external conflict that drove that nation to war. But the truth is, every single one of them was preceded by a debt bubble, the income inequality, wealth gap, and the printing of money. And there's a relationship between those economic factors and a desire for conflict. And I think that is what we are seeing play out over the past couple of years, starting with our motivated interest in supporting Ukraine against the Russia conflict, and now escalating it towards inviting Ukraine to join NATO to escalate the conflict itself.

1:18:49Now, I think there's a notion that having a war is stimulated, having a war is unifying. This would be a way to the dog theory. I don't think it's a way to the dog theory as much as it is. What do you do when the economic condition of the nation is such that the federal government has to print money to support the economy and or to bridge the wealth gap? And when under those circumstances in order to unify the country in order to motivate a system of unification amongst a fracturing society or fracturing economic strata, you feel like you have to have an external enemy and that the notion of war itself is economically stimulating.

1:19:33I think that those are the motivating factors that we've seen play out six times in the last 500 years, and we may be unfortunately seeing play out here again. As we talked to Graham Allison, Ray Dalio, about last year, we said, what can we do to avoid this? That there have been times, historically, where these things have been avoided. But if we're not being cognizant of what's going on here and motivating a different a different path, whether it's through our electoral cycle or through being loud and vocal in whatever media channels we each have access to to make folks more aware of this, I think you know, we will find ourselves walking down this path of looking for global conflict and finding it.

1:20:17Tomat, you look like you wanted to chime in there, yeah. Of the three presidential candidates to be very clear, one is supportive then of some kind of confrontation because by proxy they're supportive of admitting Ukraine and to NATO which would create a war and two are pretty clearly anti -war. And just for people who know the boom bus cycle behind empires rise into clines, you can see that if you're on the YouTube video. But the sixth of eight moments is revolutions in wars as Freiburg's pointing out there are two more that come after that, debt and political restructuring and then the new order emerges.

1:20:57And so the question here I guess becomes, can diplomacy win the day and then is Blinken's point that they eventually can become a member or that they're imminently going to become a member and it's breaking news so we don't know if he's speaking about this. Well clearly let's just be really clear on this. The words he used were very carefully chosen. And that means that there was a media and press strategy conversation that was had by him and his staff, which obviously found its way into the White House administration and that there was an executive conversation about this. For sure. This is the positioning we need to now be clearly stating, which means that this is now policy.

1:21:37He did not slip up on those words. This was not some off the cuff comment. This was clearly a media -trained statement, which means that it is administration - I always do it during - That's being delivered from FIAM. Exactly. At the next White House press conference, you will hear the question asked by reporters, is this the White House position? And they will say, yes, it is. Yeah. And just to be clear, that video had a couple of edits in it, and we don't have the full press conference here. The quote from the Hill is, Ukraine will become a member of NATO period. Our purpose at the summit is to help build a bridge to that membership, which then seems like this, if you're building a bridge, that takes time.

1:22:15So maybe they mean over time, the fullness of time, to be able to do this in the next year would be if it was on the timeline of Finland would be insane. I cannot say it would be insane, but they're not ruling it out. And I think you have to look at the context of what's happening. He's making these remarks as all the news from the battlefield is terrible. Ukraine is losing and it's at risk of collapsing. and European leaders like Macron are there for calling for direct NATO intervention in the war. So for Lincoln to be making this sort of statement is really adding fuel to the fire. And let's see if he walks it back.

1:22:54Let's see if he clarifies it. I predict that he won't, because this is a major clarification for sure, because this does not feel like it'd be good for voting, because the war is incredibly unpopular. It'll make the election pretty simple. Every other issue, all the social issues that we fight about will fall away. The debt will fall away. The border will fall away if this is true. If it true. Does America want to go to war? Well, Chimath, I think we're already at that point, even if there is some sort of clarification. And the reason I say that is because Biden clearly is very committed to this Ukraine policy.

1:23:26It didn't just start when he became president. It started when he became vice president and was managing the Ukraine portfolio for Obama. This is why 100 Biden got that job in Ukraine because Biden was running the show there and they have been very committed to this idea of bringing Ukraine into NATO for Decades. I mean he supported when he was a senator. So this is not like Freeberg said this is not like to some randomly chosen words out of the blue Blinken measures his words carefully. He knows what he's saying and This is something that Biden clearly is passionate about and what you have to believe is that in a Biden's second term He's gonna manage this whole situation so perfectly that this war is not gonna escalate any further And I just I have no confidence in that remember if you want to use a historical analogy Go back to Woodrow Wilson in 1916 he was elected on literally the catchphrase he kept us out of war Lesson one year later we were in World War one World War one.

1:24:25Yeah, so this idea of of well Biden when possibly get us into a war. I mean, history shows otherwise. History shows that presidents, once they win reelection, are more likely to get us into war rather than less because they don't have to fear voters. So then the question is, what is in Joe Biden's part? What's he passionate about? He is clearly passionate about this cause, about bringing Ukraine into NATO, and certainly not having Ukraine collapse or lose this war. where as Trump and Bobby Kennedy have both said that they will end this war, they will seek a peace deal if elected. I think that's enough right there.

1:25:06Yeah, I mean, and obviously, Lincoln and Biden are looking for peace as well. They just don't want to lose the war. No, they're not looking for peace. I just think they are definitely for peace. You can disagree, but they're really one piece. Why did they reject the deal? It's not that it's simple at the beginning of this war. Yeah, because they I think don't want Russia to determine who gets to be in NATO and then want free countries to decide. Is that what's going to war for? I mean, that is, I guess, the existential question here is at what point do we want to let free democracies determine their future and protect them from invading countries?

1:25:38That is actually the core of this. Do you believe in democracy? Do you believe free countries should have the autonomy to pick their future and is that worth fighting for? That is the question the world faces right now. I think that framing is not totally accurate. I think, of course, those things are good and right things. I think the thing is, on the balance of issues, there are seasons when certain priorities need to be shaped by a country. And right now, we're in a season where there's tremendous domestic instability. In our country. And our country, in our country. Yeah, in our country. Yeah, in our country.

1:26:16Just to be clear. So I think the question isn't that is democracy important. Of course it's important. It's how relatively important is it abroad relative to these domestic issues here? Yeah, I remember. Is it hold on a limited finish? It is it worth fighting for is the issue and is it worth fighting for when you don't have the resources to do it? Now if we were sitting here and a country next to Ukraine was invaded, say Finland or say France or another country in Europe was in New York. invaded, we would absolutely go to bat for them. But for Ukraine, we won't go to bat for them. They're not part of NATO.

1:26:54And you know, this is the issue of our time. When you say go bat, are you saying send American soldiers? Because that's what we're talking about. If France or Finland was in, would you be opposed to France? If Russia invaded France, would you defend France? Would you be in favor of the? Of course, that's our article fight. That's our article five guarantee under NATO. This is why I don't want to extend an article five guarantee to Ukraine because it will put us directly in conflict with Russia And I'm not interested in being in war three. Right. And then so Finland and Sweden come up. And I guess the argument would be, would you be in favor of sending troops to defend Finland and Sweden, the latest members of NATO?

1:27:26And would you be in favor of that? Now we're committed. And when you were in favor of them joining NATO, I guess is the next question. Should Finland be in favor of that? We discussed it on the pod. I explained that it was creating a liability on an asset, but what's done is done. Should free countries be able to join NATO, I guess, is at the end of the day. Well, I think that's a question actually. Actually, let me make two points on that. the first one is countries don't have a right to join NATO. Any more than I have a right to join Augusta Country Club. Just because I'm a golf player doesn't mean I get to join Augusta, okay?

1:27:53It's up to the current membership of Augusta or NATO decide whether they're going to emit a country based on what is in their interests. It has never been in our interest to make Ukraine's security dependent of the United States. Sorry, this is the reality. The second thing I want to point out is that what What was Russia demanding? They were demanding Ukrainian neutrality. They were not basically looking to conquer Ukraine. They wanted them to be neutral. So Ukraine did not have to give up its freedom. Okay? They just had to agree to be neutral. That was the key issue. That's what makes it very different than some other historical analogies.

1:28:33And that was not acceptable to us. At the very beginning of the war, Blinken said that we would insist on an open -door policy. We would be... clearly the right move here would have been to kick the can down the road and just help Putin. We'll take it off. We'll take Neato off the table for 10 years or 20 years and then we could have outlasted Putin. You and I have been in a rush. You had much better read on that before the war started. And then the minute the war started, everyone forgot that that was the key Kassu's belly of this war. Just more diplomacy. It's better. Can I just say one thing that, go ahead.

1:29:03Sachs, you would be the perfect member of Augusta. We're not for one spot issue Careful to Bob Ryan's with snush. Oh Augusta. Oh my gosh My favorite from with the lunatic Drainge guy from New York who's in Congress and they expelled him after six months George said to send us where like are you Jewish? He's like, I'm Jew Ish ish ish like a little pause in the middle All right, listen, another amazing episode episode 173. Congratulations to our CEO, John Hal. He's with us now. I will make. Just a scratch. And I'll call back. Please do us a favor. Do us a favor. 486 ,000 people following the YouTube channel.

1:29:54Get in there and be part of the Q &A when we hit 500 ,000. And your best chance of being part of the 1 million subscriber party, which I think Jamat's gonna oversee. It'll be at the win in Las Vegas. Oh, okay, there it is. We have a location and then the all in sum making announcement next week. Go to YouTube, type in all in and subscribe for the Rainman, David Sachs. Yeah. Jamat, Pauli Hempatia, the German dictator, and your Sultan of science who loved Dune 2. He loved it. He saw it twice. Overrated. It's not good. I'm going to see it twice. I'm going to go see it again. Go see it in. I'm not.

1:30:34I think it's. Oh my God. The comment boards got so angry. Furious? Furious. Overrated. I mean, this set them off like nothing has ever set them off. I don't know. Try making a comment about Trump during my world. You can't attack Timothy, Timothy Chalamet. Oh my God. Oh my God. Oh my God. Man, they were really. Timothy Chalamet. Russian to his defense. I mean, he does look like he drinks a lot of soy. I'll be honest. I think that guy's probably, I don't think that guy's ever had whole milk. No, I think skinny, he's ever. I think skinny people like that when you're super skinny, like that you travel in packs to protect each other as a group.

1:31:13Oh, you know, like so like you can get in a group like hyenas or something and then just protect each other. Yeah, it's like, oh, we got to stick up for each other. because if we don't, you know, hey, are you standing sideways or are you like a pod? There's like a pod. A pod of soy. The old like the Roman turtle protection thing. But yeah, she holds up as one as one. So he is now up to 630 million in the box office. Pretty pretty good run, huh? You know they're going to do you in three now. Oh, it's definitely happening. He's just going to negotiate a big price tag. Big deal. Yeah. Big deal. All right, everybody.

1:31:49You know what to do and we'll see you next time on Love you boys. We're on this podcast. You are on the podcast. Tell your friends

1:32:05We open source it to the fans and they've just got crazy with

1:32:19Oh, I'm going through it. That's my dog taking it away. She's driving away. So, wait a minute. Oh, man. My ham is the actual meaty apple. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge or two, because they're all just like this like sexual tension that we just need to release some of them. What, your beef? What, your beer? Beer or beef? Beef or what? We need to get my veggies already. I'm going all in.

1:32:50I'm doing all it.