Trump Rally or Bessent Put? Elon Back at Tesla, Google's Gemini Problem, China's Thorium Discovery

25:04And so many of them now talk about not just how consumers aren't going necessarily in their stores the way they used to. But really about the American dream, the American brand, and they talk about the idea that, if you were a young kid and you got a job at Starbucks, you used to go home to your family and say, and your family go, wow, that's amazing. They're not doing that right now. So many of these companies are even trying to reestablish how they market and advertise their companies almost as if they're a local business, not an American brand. And I don't know what that ultimately means, but I also was talking to a Chinese CEO who made a, I thought it just a fascinating comment to me, which was, you know, we're cool with the US being the leader.

25:47We were always cool with that. We're okay with that. I love it, we're okay with it. It gets a lot more complicated when you have to be the winner. And I think that's an interesting think sort of construct this idea that we're first and we have to win. And I know we're telling, Trump is telling citizens in the U .S. that we're going to win, but he's also telling the world that. And I think that's a... I think that Chinese CEO should have written that memo to Xi Jinping and see if he agreed because I think he would say, no, we are the winner. Look, you got to remember in 2003, three years after China was admitted to the WTO, who in town became premier.

26:23He had this incredible speech. And in it what he said is, there are these 10 boxes. And I've written inside these 10 boxes, all the critical industries that in 25 to 30 years from now will dictate supremacy in the world. We are going to create national champions, he said, in those 10 areas. And what's interesting about Xi, despite the ideological differences to who he followed through with it. This is a group of people. So we can say what the CEOs are going to say. But at the end of the day, the CEO of China Inc. is one man. And he and his C suite have been pretty resolute, which is even when he inherited a political ideology that he didn't completely agree with, he followed through with it, which is these guys in these 10 areas now, own the critical inputs that make the world go around.

27:19And I think it's pretty reasonable to do a risk assessment to say, well, how do you stand up to that and actually have your own point of view if you don't have your own method of having access to those things? I think that is the most important question. Everything else about, you know, brand and all of this other stuff, I think comes after this question. This is the critical question because if they can tell you what to think that is not winning. Yeah, I would just add to that that you hear this criticism of Trump a lot, which is that okay, he's right on the issue or his instincts are correct, but there should be a nicer way of doing it.

27:59And I guess I would give that story more credence if the people making that criticism had actually been advocating for a change in the status quo prior to Trump and they weren't. I mean, we had this bipartisan globalist consensus that pretty much all trade practices with China, no matter how unfair they got, was basically good for the United States. And no one was really doing anything about it until President Trump made it this issue and made the unfair trade practices conspicuous. So if somebody else had been willing to take that on, then I would maybe give credence to this idea that there's some non -Trumpian way of doing this.

28:35But I just don't think that's the way our political system works. I think that the way our political system works is that you have to completely shift the conversation first to create a new consensus and then you work out the deals and that process can be a little bit disruptive. Okay, one tiny follow -up. So I don't know if you guys saw the news this morning. A report out that Apple is going to move its manufacturing of iPhones that are exported to the US or imported here in the US, but they're going to manufacture all that stuff in India, not in China anymore. So they're going to move all the manufacturing to India.

29:14What do you think? See you in 2035. They say they can do it supposedly in 18 months by the end of 26. Bet. You say no way. Bet. I think this is geopolitically smart. Yeah, they should do it, but I'm saying that's a, it's very smart. It's not going to get done 18 months. I don't know how long it's going to take, but look, I think one of the big lessons here over the past 25 years is that you have security first. Security has to be worked out first. Then you have trade. If you build your whole supply chain and all your trading relationships with countries that are fundamentally adversarial to your interests, and we can get into that part of the US -China relationship.

29:59And I think most people would say that we're in some version of a new Cold War with China. Obviously, you're going to have to revise your trade relationships because, again, we can't be dependent on an adversary for core components that then go into our military, for example. So security always has to come first, then you work out trade. And I think that India is fundamentally extremely aligned with us on security because they view their biggest potential threat in adversaries being China. And that is basically the way that the US sees the world as well. And so I do think that the US indie relationship is just very aligned.

30:38And I think therefore the investments that get made in the trade relationships that get forged will be very stable over the next couple of decades. Whereas, you know, if you make a big investment in a country that could be your adversary, you should expect that that relationship could get disrupted. I don't think the Apple deal is from a standstill. My understanding is Foxconn and others have been working with Apple to actually stand up manufacturing capacity in India for some time now. And I do believe that they probably have one or two model runs already active in the country. So I don't think that this is necessarily from a standstill.

31:16Let's go recruit the people, figure out the processes, find the builders, stand up the facilities that there's probably a model system already running that's now about replication and scale up, which is why they have confidence in the state of goal. It's not often that Tim Cook will stand up and say, I'm going to do something in 18 months and then be delayed by yours. He's not Elon. He's going to come out. He's going to be very clear. He's always been very clear. So, and my understanding is this has been thought about for some time. Andrew, I think you've been to a lot of conferences where for three years now you've been hearing people banging the table saying, get everything out of China as quickly as you can.

31:48Tim Cooks heard that message. He's been thoughtful about it. He's been planning for this day. I don't think he wanted to be declarative about this until the day came. Well, the day is here. And how do we feel that it's gone to India? It's not coming to America. I think we knew it wasn't coming to America. Well, India has one massive advantage over China, which is that it has one fifth of the labor cost of China, which has one fifth of the labor cost of America. So India is a natural a place for a lot of this next generation labor to end up. Plus they have a very educated workforce, plus they have a young workforce.

32:21In many ways, you could say that it's China circa 2003. I mean, you have to remember, right? Like China from 2006, I think to like 2012, their GDP grew at like 10 % a year. I mean, can you imagine what that must have been like when a country that big is growing that fast? So India's gonna have that moment over the next 20 or 30 years. The only reason I scoffed at what you said in India, would you? I have a large rare earth mine in India. Yeah, it's one of the largest supplies of rare earths outside the United States. We negotiated that deal with the PMO and they gave us a great deal to compete with the Chinese.

32:58A specialty chemical processing is on the ground there and then the idea is then to import all of that specialty chemical into the United States and then do all the... I like the lacrosse. I just there's something about China where there's a lot of accounting fraud still and you can't really trust a lot of the numbers But if that all gets cleared up the macros all right. It's exactly where it should be for you mean India India yeah Yeah, I mean I just think the structure the the structural realities just make it a good place to invest I just think that India and the US are gonna be very aligned for for a long time agreed again And their main security threat is China.

33:38And our main security threat is China. And that's not going to change for probably the entire 21st century. A couple of weeks ago, Saxon, I sat down with the Indian ambassador. And it's very clear they're fundamentally aligned with the United States. And I think exactly what Saxon said is true. Everybody knows who needs to cooperate in order to have a reset of global trade policy and political leverage. So I don't know. I'm pretty pro India. It's a very difficult place to invest. I agree with you, Sorkin. I've never made money there. I tried my hand at tech investing Over a decade. I maybe have returned 50 cents on the dollar.

34:12Why so then so then for wrong like what's the macro reason The market was far too immature my mental model was about how American success look like and when I tried to impose that on the Indian market it all Just blew up so a lot of the Indian entrepreneurs how they raised money was not from Indian VCs. It was from American VCs. And you can't tell an American VC an idea that just makes no sense to you because your frame of reference is the United States. So what turned out to work was a couple of very large bets that were copies of American businesses. So like the Indian Amazon work, the Indian PayPal kind of work, the Indian DoorDash kind of work, But everything else didn't work.

35:00So then why? Because is it the consumer market's not there? Or no, because the capital markets aren't there. No, because we have these mental biases that will never allow us to believe the way that they would construct the business would work. So for example, they're like, hey, here's a business where we're going to buy food from the local farmer, then we're going to put it in a warehouse, then we're going to drive around on rickshaws and deliver it to people. And you think, well, this business can never work. while actually that business turned out to be a ginormous success. Nobody in the United States would have ever funded that.

35:30Now what happened four years ago though was after a bunch of meetings, I pivoted to these other areas because when you talk to the Humbannis and when you talk to the Adonis, they're like, dude, stop beating your head against this wall, like build infrastructure. It just works. And it was true. They've been right. Okay, one geopolitical question. How do you feel about India buying as much oil as they do from Russia? And we'll get into low Ukraine then later. Smart. Look, India is a country that has two great powers in its neighborhood. China and Russia. It has a contested border with China. They've had border scrimmages.

36:10When you have a country that is much more powerful that's actually a security threat to you, you then seek good relations, even possibly an alliance with the United States. other great power in the neighborhood. That has been India's philosophy. They've had good relations with Russia for a long time, even going back to the Cold War. That is what makes sense for their security standpoint. By the way, the exact same thing is true to the United States. We just haven't realized the strategic reality. China is the peer competitor. I mean, Miersheim made this point at our all -in -submit. China is the peer competitor.

36:43It's the only country in threatening our security. Russia is a distant number three in terms of the great power rankings. What you want to do, if you're in a sort of heads up competition, where there's two superpowers, is you want to make an alliance with that number three. And what we've done is we've pushed Russia into the arms of China. What we ought to have been doing is the reverse Kissinger. We did this during the Cold War, by the way. We had the Soviet Union and we had China. And in that case, the Soviet Union was the big threat to American security. So what do we do? We had Nixon and Kissinger go to China and make a deal with Mao.

37:25China was just as communist as the Soviet Union. Mao had blood on his hands to a degree that is much greater than someone like Putin has. And yet we're willing to shake hands with him and make an alliance because that was real polity. And I think in a similar way, this is what our strategy should have been with Russia for the last two decades. And instead, we've been foolishly pushing them into the arms of China. Well, Sorkin, what's your read? I mean, what's your opinion on the... I didn't even use a tough... I look, India's a tough place to invest. Everybody I know who's been talking India for the last, I don't know, 15, 20 years has been talking it up as the next great utopia.

38:04And it may very well be, it probably will be. It's just a question of when. I think you have to... And you have to be specific about the end market. You know, like there are people that have made a ton of money there, but it's not the way classical Western economics is played out by any means. Andrew, I mean, what do you think about this sort of what I would call balance of powers logic 101? I get the idea that you go to your least, I don't know, at least your friend's friend. Your enemies enemies enemies your friend. No, the enemy enemies your friend or whatever it is. Yeah, whatever it is. It's about some power logic.

38:41I get where you're going with this. I just think that Russia, given all that they have done, it's hard to look at Russia and China, and maybe Russia on the margins on a relative basis in life is better than China in certain ways, but in other ways it's not. And so it's very complicated to sort of, for me to look at it and go, okay, it's actually interesting. I mean, I was going to use a real loaded word. who is more evil, right? Is China more evil or is Russia more evil? I mean, I think there would be a big debate about that in the world. Well, I think it's, it's unhazurally judgmental. Yeah. Right?

39:21I think it's dangerous to look at foreign policy from a position of extreme moralism because ultimately the purpose of our foreign policy is to ensure American security. And we can't rectify every injustice in the world. And over the past 25 years, we've become hyper interventionist, you know, in an attempt, so we've claimed to do that, right? We keep saying that we've gotten involved in all these places because we want to promote our values and spread democracy. And by the way, we did the opposite. I mean, you look at the forever wars in Middle East, we had interventions and occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, how did all those things work out?

39:57They did not promote our values or spread democracy. So my point is just, I don't think we should look at foreign policy from a position of extreme moralism. I'd prefer to think of neither of those countries as as quote unquote evil and I would refer to think of them as countries which have their own interests. I think that with respect to China, the real issue is that it is a revisionist great power. It has made clear that it wants to basically annex Taiwan. It wants to turn the South China Sea into effectively a Chinese lake. It does not respect international waters. It has territorial disputes with Japan.

40:35And if we don't play a role in containing China, then China will revise the balance of power in East Asia in a major way. And I think that would have, I think, profound consequence for the United States. That may be, but I just don't think that Chinese will rush. I play you off a roof in one day and you won't even know it. And that's the difference. And I don't know if that's a moral or a奔. I'm not worried about it. The United States is not going to be throwing off a roof by Russia, and that's the level at which we should think about these things. If you look at Russia's behavior, Russia actually is not a revisionist great power.

41:06What it wants is just security on his borders. The revisionist power actually in Europe over the past 25 years was the United States because we pushed NATO right up to Russia's borders despite the promises that were made to Gorbachev in the 90s. So we're the ones who've revised the balance of power in a way that was profoundly threatening to the Russians. And I think it would be far better from the American standpoint to just work out a security architecture for Europe with Russia that gives the Russians the security they crave on the Western border and gives Europe the security it craves. And I think if we had had that mentality as opposed to this highly moralistic mentality where we basically want to spread American style democracy everywhere, you don't think that American style democracy though has helped the world in some way.

41:49I'm not saying we did it right everywhere. I believe we've lost a lot of wars that we should not have attempted. But if it could be done, you're right. But the problem is Andrew, the failure rate is too high. Look at what happened in Afghanistan, in Syria, in Iraq. As we've gone in to make regime change, we actually put those people in a worse condition than they were before. They don't end up with American democracy after trillion dollars in Afghanistan. The Taliban is back in charge doing awful, brutal things. Right, two trillion. And I would be a proponent of... And by the way, this was also part of the promise of the open internet.

42:24And I think from a fundamental point of view, the regulatory regime we had in the United States with the internet was driven by this notion that the freedom of Information would actually allow democratic proliferation. We were talking about the Arab Spring as you'll, you know, we're all like that's going to be this big moment. But at the end of the day, it turned out that didn't work either. That there's something much more complex in the history of a people, energy geography, the deep ties of those people have, this idea that turning on a screen or showing up with a tank is going to flip the switch to democracy, turns out not to be true.

42:54And look, just be clear. I mean, I think my lucky stars that I'm an American and we do have the type of government we have here and my parents immigrated to the United States in 1977 for political reasons because we have the type of government we have here. So look, I'm a strong believer in American style democracy. The problem is our efforts to promote it or impose that style of government through regime change operations simply has not worked. I mean, this should be one of the big learnings of American foreign policy. Oh, so you're just going to be a better model it, right? It's better to. Yeah, so how do you model it?

43:26I think you model it by being the shining city on the hill by saying a good example, by focusing on our own country and making America the best it can be so that people all over the world look to us and say, oh, we want to do that. And I actually think that what I'm describing is American soft power. If you go back to the 1980s, we had that soft power. I mean, the people of places like in Russia, they love buying American blue jeans and American music and we had that soft power. We were inspiring to the world, but it all changed, say, starting in the 90s, but then really in the 2000s. When we started going into these countries with our militaries and occupying all these countries, we soured them on America.

44:04We made them hate us. And this is the problem with this hyper interventionism, is what we should be doing is setting an example, not trying to occupy these countries. Let me read something to you. This is this week, this is Trump condemning the strikes going on in Kiev. This is, I'm not happy with the Russian strikes in Kiev. Not necessary, very bad timing. Vladimir, stop exclamation point. 5 ,000 soldiers a week are dying. Let's get the peace deal done. How is this deal going to get done? I should also say Secretary of State, Mark Rubio reportedly skipping a meeting on a ceasefire talk on Wednesday after Ukraine refused to recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea.

44:50Well, the reason why Rubio canceled that meeting is because the Americans put forward a peace proposal and Zelensky dismissed it out of hand. before the Russians could do anything, Zelensky dismissed it. And recognizing Russian ownership of Crimea, if you will, should be the easiest point for Zelensky to concede. And he dismissed it out of hand. Now, why do I say that? The Russians annexed Crimea in 2014. So this was not something that happened in 2022. It happened over 10 years ago. And if you look at what the people of Crimea want, and there's been a lot of Western polling on this, there's been man on the street interviews by NBC.

45:28see that people of Crimea by something like over 80 % say they want to be part of Russia, they're ethnic Russians. And I'd say the final point on this is that Zelensky and Ukraine tried to get Crimea back in the summer of 2023 with the summer counteroffensive. Remember, the whole point of that summer counteroffensive was to sever the land bridge to Crimea, destroy the Kurds bridge, isolate Crimea and essentially lay siege to it. This was the whole point of that. And they got nowhere with that. They didn't even break through the first serve, he can line. So my point is that it's militarily impossible to retake Crimea.

46:00The people of Crimea don't want Ukraine to retake it. They want to be part of Russia. And yet Zelensky cannot give this up. Okay, so how do we get to yes? How do we get to yes? This is supposed to be done on day one. And here we are. The basic problem is that Zelensky doesn't want to make a deal. I mean, he has rebuffed the Americans on Crimea, which should be the easiest point to give on. He's been completely unrealistic about their prospects on the battlefield. He was insulting to the White House when he visited the White House in his T -shirt or whatever. He was dressed inappropriately and then got in.

46:34Got in. Got in. Got in. Got in. Got in. Got in. I mean, he has an obligation, I think, to be respectful to his patrons in a way that his patrons may not be. He's patrons. In a way that we may not to him. And he has demonstrated, I think, that he's unrealistic in every possible way. He's unrealistic about Ukrainian prospects on the battlefield, about retaking Crimea, and about who the hand is that feeds him. So maybe on this is quite simple, which is if Zelensky won't see reality, let him find new patrons let starmer and macron support him they say they will they say they have the ability to do this but they can't and they can't enough well they appear to my point is the lensky has made his bad let him sleep in it this is my point of view on it he refuses to listen to the Americans he refuses to recognize that this administration even has leverage over him and you don't think that ultimately if Putin takes Crimea plus plus whatever that he's going after Poland next or I mean that's the dominant theory that becomes the complicated part No, I don't think so.

47:58I don't think there's any evidence that he wants Poland I don't even think he wants the part of Ukraine that is chock full of Ukrainian ultranationalists because You would have a massive insurgency there. He doesn't want a Gaza type situation And by the way just another point on kramia. Where is the insurgency if Kramia really wanted to go with Ukraine as opposed to Russia? Why has there been no uprising over the past 10 years? So, in any event, my point is there's no evidence that Putin wants Poland, Poland's part of NATO, that would start World War III. I think Putin has shown that he's a calm, rational decision -maker, and I don't think he wants World War III.

48:35Now, the Russians have said what their terms are. They said it last year. They basically, in this root cause speech, they gave in June of last year. And basically, what it comes down to is they want Istanbul plus. There was a deal to end this war in the in the first month the Istanbul deal and it required Ukraine to basically sever its security relationship with the West and to recognize that would not become part of NATO and That to give up Crimea basically that was the deal back then What Russia has said is that's still the deal plus realities on the ground So in other words the Russians have lost I don't know 100 ,000 plus hundreds of thousands of soldiers now taking this territory in the east and obviously they're not going to give it up.

49:18So I think that the Ukrainians could have had a better deal in the first month of the war, the Biden administration rejected that. Now there's a different deal. It's Istanbul plus. And I think that the American proposal is pretty close to that. So I think this administration recognizes the wisdom and just reality of that deal, but the Ukrainians aren't. So look, my view is simple. If the Ukrainians are unwilling to take the DLS on the table and they want to find new backers with the Europeans, let them. But why should we continue to support this? Okay, let's pivot. Let's talk markets. And let's specifically talk a couple stocks.

49:53Because it's just a great, because I want to hear you disagree. No, no, I could, but we're going to, I think we're going to run out of time. Okay. I want to talk alphabet. So everybody thought the blue league economy was dead, open AI, perplexity, all of it was, you know, going to take the search market, they come out with earnings, Sundar, does way better than everybody expected. Revenue up $90 .2 billion is up 12 % net income was up, up almost 50 % year over year, you got the cloud still ripping, you got a big buyback program, you start talking about Waymo on the call for the first time in a long time, if ever, stock's up about 5 % on the news.

50:33What do we think? What an incredible business. Oh my gosh. Oh, there's a lot of resiliency and alphabet that I don't think people have given the company credit for, first of all, I'll just highlight with the dividends they're paying, plus the share buyback, you're basically getting a four, five percent yield on the stock. So the dividends are like 10 billion a year and they're announcing 70 billion back on two trillion in market caps. You're making four percent a year just by owning the stock and the dividends and the buybacks. Then if you look at the revenue, it was $90 billion, $77 in services, $12 in cloud.

51:09So the $90 billion, about half of it, was ads on search. And a lot of people have been talking about the decline in search due to AI. That's the end of of alphabet here you can kind of see the breakdown. What this shows is that there's such significant growth, $9 billion in YouTube, $7 .5 billion in non -Google ads, $10 billion in subscriptions, with 270 million subscribers across subscription businesses, 12 billion in cloud revenue, which is growing 30 % year over year. There's a lot of resiliency even if you take out search. And so the question is, what's the downside, what's the upside? Well, the downside is, what's the worst that could happen to search?

51:50What they lose half of the market to chat GPT? If they lost half the market to chat GPT, and the rest of the business keeps growing the way it is, you get back to parity pretty quick. What's the upside? Well, the upside is they're able to use AI to actually reinvent search, retain the audience and create an entirely new search experience that's chat -based or has some chat integration into search. So it seems to me trading at 18 times free cash flow, which is where this thing's at right now, plus the 4 % yield on dividends and buybacks, plus the kind of seemingly pretty significant gap between the downside and the upside here.

52:26It's just such a powerful business. It just seems like it highlighted that this is not a business that's in decline And it's about to die as everyone's been kind of proclaiming there's enough growth engines here And there's enough resilience and the price is so good. I feel quite good about the thing. I think there's a hundred billion dollars of hidden value Called Waymo in this business. I'm the way mo 250 ,000 rides a week now growing like crazy and they're only like four cities It's crazy and I think I think they'll be saving them zero Yeah, right now zero I think the most interesting stat that I saw from the earnings was all sex by the way.

52:58Which is crazy. The most interesting stat in the earnings was that I think they said that they had 270 million total paid subscriptions across YouTube and Google One. And my initial thought was, well, when are you just going to stick Gemini as the most obvious interface in front of it? I think that these companies now need to confront that this open AI behemoth is growing at a rate that was probably a hindrance before and now is a real strategic risk. And so if you have 270 million paid subs, come on guys, stuff Gemini right in front of these guys. That's my first takeaway. But again, they're doing it from a position of strength, but they need to get going because they're probably himiting and highing and there's probably all kinds of people, all kinds of cooks in that kitchen, but I've heard a lot of stories about this.

53:53I think Sundar Larry and Sergei just need to take the equity and the political capital they have as the CEO and the two largest shareholders and just stop the decision down people's throats. So that's number one. The other thing that I think about actually relates to what I spoke about last week about Nvidia. So just to give you guys a little bit of a cleanup, you know, after we spoke about Nvidia, the Nvidia team reached out to me. And they were like, hey, HMoth, here's a bunch of stuff that will help you unpack what you spoke about in a little bit more detail. So let me tell you what Nvidia told me and then I think it relates to GCP.

54:33So what they told me, when you look at the SEC filings for Nvidia and you add up all the revenue, it says that about 47 % of the revenue goes to China, Singapore, Taiwan, I think it was. And what these guys educated me on is that they've been trying to refine how this is described, but it's not what it seems. Meaning, they report revenue on what's called the billing or the invoicing address. So meaning, you are an entity, you'll buy a huge amount of chips or compute power, and you issue the invoice out of Taiwan or Singapore or China. That's what represents 47 % of NVIDIA's reported revenue. So it turns out that that's actually not where the silicon gets shipped.

55:27So there's a Singaporean office that handles the invoicing. So then I said, well, who are these companies that are using these places? these places and it turns out that it's a bunch of major US companies including US OEMs and clouds that use Singapore for invoicing their suppliers. But that the, you know, what industry sources have told us is that all of these products are almost always shipped elsewhere, including US, Mexico, Taiwan, etc. all over the place. So why is this interesting? There was a study by artificial analysis. this, Nick, I will send you the link. But basically what it showed was that the clouds were not doing any real form of KYC on who is using their stuff.

56:15So now I think we get to this next place, which is like, I think the Google business is profoundly amazing. I think they need to do something with the subscriptions that they have and put Gemini right in front and really do a head -on attack against chat GPT. those are the pluses, the minuses or the risks that I think now will get uncovered is, are the clouds doing enough to make sure that China and other folks aren't getting access to compute that they should not get access to? And that could have an impact on some of their revenue. So that's a GCP problem. I think it's an Azure problem. It's a AWS problem.

56:54And that's going to need to get sorted out in the next couple of quarters because if Western governments basically say to the clouds, hey, you need to KYC your customers so that it's not somebody distilling the best of our models into a place we don't agree with. I think there could be some blowback. All these numbers obviously backward looking. Do we think, and I would be talking too much about tariffs, but do we think that the tariff story is going to impact a Google next quarter? Do we think it's going to impact a meta next quarter? And to the extent that Google is saying, look, we're going to keep our big infrastructure spend $75 billion, you know, full steam ahead, which is great for the ecosystem, great for Nvidia, great for everybody in that world.

57:35Do we think that holds up if we think there's a hiccup between now and whenever all this tariff stuff gets sorted if it does? I think it's going to hold up. I mean, look, I just think that this investment in CapEx and the data center buildouts is so strategic right now. I mean, I think that the hyperscalers, it's only good for their businesses, but I think they see it as so strategic to their survival that they just have to do it no matter what. In other words, I think they're totally inelastic on this. But let me just go back to Google. Nick, can you throw up this chart? I mean, I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT is that it generalizes not getting the usage.

58:10And ChatGPT is growing like crazy. If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, generalize actually really good. I mean, Gemini has made some substantial progress. It's catching up to chat GPT. But they have not caught up on the usage side. Now, to Chemos Point, you could just make Gemini the default interface in Google search. But that is true innovator's dilemma. Because if you do that, you could be giving up more than half the search revenue. So I do think Google is in a really tough spot. And the longer they wait to make Gemini front and center, the worst this usage problem gets.

58:46I mean, what's basically happening right now is users are learning a new habit. I mean, they're, they're learning to go to chat GPT to get their questions answered or just their search is answered in a completely different way. And let's be honest, they make using Gemini'd impossible and they can do just a much better job at a minimum, give the best leading edge Gemini model to the 270 million people that are already paying you for a subscription. Just do that. Do something so that you can start to blunt the growth of OpenAI. Otherwise, you're going to look back in four years and regret himming and hawing today.

59:22So, Jamal, if you're the CEO of Google, you've got a $200 billion run rate at Search Add Business. What's the right kind of integration of Gemini, such that you don't massively disrupt the Search Add Business overnight? Or do you not care, and you're just going to do it? I think that's the conundrum they're dealing with. That's not a conundrum. If you don't Understand how to value a dollar today versus a dollar tomorrow and a discount rate to disambiguate the emotionalness of that decision It's not a hard decision to make. I think the more difficult question is what is the integration look like?

59:57And if you are already paying for a YouTube subscription or a Google one subscription, what should your experience be? That's a key question. The second question is today They're already inserting Gemini in all kinds of uncomfortable ways So for example, if you use Gmail or if you use Google workspace, what happens today is all these random Gemini pop -ups come up all over the place. That is an implementation that happened at way to junior level by people that have no product taste. So if you just stop that, it's not hard. But right now you have a bunch of, you know, honestly, people that don't have taste and are a little too junior, creating a very cluttered experience.

1:00:37And if you use the products every day, it would be hard for you to disagree with me. They have infinite capital and infinite access to talent. Capital doesn't buy taste. Right. So what do you think is wrong? I agree that the Google interface trying to incorporate Gemini into the 20 blue links or whatever is very clujy. But I don't know how you fix that without just getting rid of the blue links. Right. I guess you can do a hybrid experience, but it doesn't compare it to a chat GPT, which is all in on the AI experience. So I think it's a real innovator's dilemma for them. And look, the truth is the market was killing them already because people thought that that first little AI summary thing was actually going to kill the blue link economy, right?

1:01:15Like that was there worry. And so it's this tear. I mean, I think it is a terrible conundrum if you're Sundar. How do you do? How do you do both things at the same time? Chimoff, I think you're right. There's a design way to do it, but they're not doing it. This comes down to taste. And I think you can't have group think drive creativity and taste. You either have it or you don't. And you need to find the one or two people. And then you need to use the strength of your leverage as a CEO and the ownership that Larry and Sergey have to impose one person's taste on the decision. I'm not sure. I'm not sure.

1:01:53Well, the Google homepage where they just have the search bar and the, you know, you can basically submit your search or I feel lucky or whatever. Would you replace that search bar with an AI chatbot? No, here's what I would do. I would first go to the critical other points that are around that today do not cannibalize the blue links. So the obvious insight should be, if you look at the traffic patterns, almost as a sanki diagram, right? Yeah, we just show, we just tag one up. Show a sanki. Okay, so who cares about revenue? What the real thing you should be looking at here is where are the entry points into Google that then result in a clickable link and what you would have is a very different sanki and what it would show you is that there are certain places that are highly de -optimized today for revenue generating events.

1:02:42They happen as a byproduct, but they don't happen as the use case. So in that example, you would put Gmail as a critical place, the YouTube one, the Google one subscription, and there's like five or six other places. That's where I would put Gemini as the front door and start to habituate 300 to 500 million people a week in using that. I think then you can figure out over time how much money you can make from all of that or how it directs derivative revenue and figure out what to do with Google .com last. But my point is the experience in Gmail should be done today. The experience in YouTube should be done today.

1:03:23The experience in Google one should be done today. Would you? Okay. Nick, can you put up this? Here's their homepage, right? This is the famous shop. I just checked it. I would leave it. This hasn't changed in 25 years or whatever. I would leave it alone because I think it's too disruptive and it's too politically fraught. I mean, what if there are places I'm feeling lucky, which is kind of antiquated now with AI? I mean, Gemini basically. I mean, you I would need to look at the sanki to understand how many people are actually generating monetizable events or behavior from I'm feeling lucky in 2025.

1:03:56I'm not just the novelty. It was in, you know, it isn't the novelty. I think it's as there is like a whimsical thing. I don't know if it drives revenue for them or not. If it takes the user off -site, I don't see how it drives revenue for them. Here's it. I'll tell you a great Facebook story just to explain this and why I get so animated about this. I was telling this to my 8090 team yesterday because we're dealing with this one product implementation issue. And engineers always end up fighting about whether things should be opt -in or opt -out. Okay? And it's almost like this religion where people feel like, oh, you cannot force people to do something.

1:04:34You should always make things optional. And I remember at Facebook, we bought this little company for a few million dollars that made contact importers, which essentially means if you're using any other email service to sign up for Facebook other than like, hotmail back in the, you know, early 2000s, we could import your address book. Anyways, long story short, I remember getting into a huge fight about whether that thing should be opt in or opt out. And I remember telling the guy, and I'm not gonna say who it is, because you guys on them. And I was literally like, honestly, just shut up and enjoy the success that will come from keeping this as an opt out.

1:05:10And it just reminds me that at some point, somebody needs to impose their will to make very difficult product decisions. And if you leave it to a team, you'll end up with, by the way, go to Gmail today with 95 Gemini pop -ups. It's not what will allow them to win with what they have, which is a better product, which I will agree. It is a meaningfully better model on multiple dimensions and anything else. Okay, I know Saks has to go before you go, David. I just want to hit Tesla for half a second. Tesla's out with earnings this week, stock is up 8 % on the back of that news, 23 % up in the last five days.

1:05:48In large part because Elon basically said, I'm getting out of doge and I'm going back into Tesla. So the question is, what can he actually do to fix Tesla at this point? What does he have to do? And is he really out of doge? No, I don't think he's out of doge. He didn't say he was out of doge. It was just a matter of how much time he could allocate to each thing. I mean, look, I saw this before when I was part of the Twitter transition is that for the first three months or so, he was basically full time at Twitter HQ learning the business down to the database level. I mean, every nook and cranny of that business he learned about.

1:06:23Once he felt like he had a mental model and he had the people in place that he trusted, he can move to more of a maintenance mode. And I think that's the only way he can manage five companies is that he has these intense bursts where he focuses on something, gets the right people own structure in place, feels like he understands it, and then he can delegate more. And I think that he has reached that point with Doge, but he was also clear that he's going to keep doing it because if he doesn't, there's going to be a huge backsliding where all the corrupt interests will basically put back all this corrupt spending.

1:06:53So he's going to stay involved, but as an SGE, he's limited to 130 days a year anyway. And so it makes sense for him to kind of now ration his days a little more closely, But he's got the people in place. Remember, it wasn't just him. It was also the US Digital Service, which is basically the IT branch of the executive branch, which got put under Dose. So my sense is that Dose is going to continue. It's just that Elon is shifting to a mode where he can manage it one day a week or two days a week as opposed to being there five days a week. Steve Bannon says he wants the receipts. He says there are no receipts.

1:07:29We don't have the receipts. He says we need itemized receipts to see what has actually happened. What do you think? Why wouldn't we want to cut as much as corruption as possible? I mean, I think we have to. The question is, should the public get to see exactly what's been cut and what hasn't? Why wouldn't they? Of course. And what we really need is for Congress to now embrace all of the corruption that Elon has found and eliminate it from the budget. Because at the end of the day, in order to capture the savings here, we do need those appropriations that eliminate from the budget. And my biggest concern is not something that that Doge is going to do or not.

1:08:04It's not up to Doge to do that. It's up to, frankly, these old bulls and Congress who control the appropriations process, are they going to basically backslide and just put the spending back in? Because it's easier to just do that to engage in this log rolling. Or do we take advantage of this, I think, incredible sacrifice that Elon has made? I mean, look, this is cost him enormously. Obviously, one of the reasons why Tesla is down is because you've had crazy leftists engaging in terrorism, fire bombing, Tesla dealerships, and any event, he's made this an enormous sacrifice in order to expose the corruption.

1:08:38And look what we've learned. We've basically learned that this whole NGO thing is a giant scam where the people in government give enormous amounts of money to their friends, probably with the expectation that when they leave government, they're going to be next in line at the trough. off. And I think you launched an enormous service exposing this, but you know, it's not entirely up to him in order for us to realize the benefit. We need Congress now to act on that. I'm afraid that's not going to happen. What kind of total number do you think we get? I always say a dollar saved is a dollar made and we should say I meant to that.

1:09:11The question is what do you think the total numbers ultimately going to be? Well, he says there are 160 billion right now. I think that's by the way, that's an annual number as far as I understand it. So, you know, what I always hear with spending is they always multiply everything by 10 because they assume it's going to be 10 years. So if it is 160 billion a year, that would be 1 .6 trillion over 10 years, probably more because the spending always grows. And look, that's 160 billion that we weren't planning on saving before Elon got involved in the government. So if that's all it is, that would be great.

1:09:40I think there could be more. And it really comes down to whether Doge continues to be supported by the political process. And look, Elon can't force that, right? I mean, ultimately it's up to legislators to take advantage of the work that he did. And ultimately it's up to the people to put pressure on those legislators to embrace what he did. He's done an enormous amount, you know, but there's an old saying that you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If the entrenched political interests the end of the day are, you know, if they're not going to embrace the savings that you want us found, I don't know what we can do about that.

1:10:20I mean, there's the administrative and discretionary aspect, but, you know, I've said for a while, it's going to be necessary to have statutory resolve to actually fix the deficit problem in the United States. And that means getting Congress to act. And Congress has not shown a willing this to act. And every time I go to DC, I come back, get more disappointed, I share the stories on the show. And I talk about the fact that there are very few members of Congress that are saying up and saying, at the end of the day, the first thing we need to solve is how do we reduce the deficit? Then we can address all of the policy issues that we want to talk about.

1:10:54But if we don't solve the deficit problem, there is no policy. There is nothing we're going to be able to do because the treasury rates are going to spike. There's going to be no capital. There's going to be no funding. We're going to go through a death, death spiral. So at the end of the day, we really do need Congress to stand up and lead here. It is not on one man's shoulders. There is only so much Elon can do without statutory authority from Congress. And I think that's really important in this, in this budget reconciliation process. And it's really important for the president to also help lead Congress to where we need to go on this.

1:11:27Members of Congress are elected because they get stuff for their constituents. The more they get, the more likely they already get elected. And next cycle, they got to get their constituents more stuff. So it creates an escalating spiral staircase. It's a problem in how democracy operates. It creates a tragedy of the commons. There's a collective action problem because like you said, each individual congressman or senator primarily wants to get stuff for their district or their state for their special interests. and there's no one really looking out for the public interest, the overall common good.

1:12:01And these appropriators are based on Gage and Logrolling where they're willing to give you know their colleagues, their pork if they get their pork. And this is why we have a $2 trillion dollar deficit. It's a really hard thing to fix. I mean, it's really hard. This is the problem with the policy is eventually, eventually, eventually, you realize you can vote yourself all the money. And that's what you do. I think, you know, this has been something that I remember, or Bush 41 in his state of the Union called for a line item veto. This was like 30 years ago and we still need that. You know, I do think that if the president had more authority over this process, it'd be less of a tragedy of the commons.

1:12:39In my naive youth, I was very against that and I felt like it was giving too much power to the president and I never really understood the wisdom of it until we find ourselves at the end of the cycle, which is where we are here. That's. Yeah, and unfortunately, Congress will never, I think, changes ways until they're forced to by some sort of crisis, which, Freeberg, I think, is your point about eventually will be in a debt crisis, and then Congress will finally see the wisdom. And they'll finally appreciate what Elon did. You know, there's all these entrenched political interest complaining about Elon.

1:13:09I mean, again, he undertook an enormous sacrifice to try and fix our fiscal situation, which is unsustainable before there's a crisis. One day, there'll be a crisis. Everyone will see that he's right. But to answer your question, Andrew, Nick, you want to pull up this polymarket. So this is the polymarket and how much spending we'll do. Guys, unfortunately, I got a 25. Yeah, we'll see you later. It's like, bye, sex, boom. Love you. Dave, those great. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Polymarket's showing an 84 % chance of less than 50 billion being cut in 2025. And only 3 % chance. Isn't the number on doge .gov right now like 1, 16 or 16?

1:13:43That's what they're saying. They've cut in contracts. So that means the annualized run rate of savings from cutting contracts, but what Polly Markets showing is what's the actual savings in 2025 from those actions. Oh, because these are multi -er contracts. Multi -er contracts, but then there's also reporting that like $92 billion of it, I think, isn't actually itemized. So it's hard to understand what's actually on the list. And they haven't done anything yet in defense, right? So that's a big Honeypot, I guess if you want to use that word potentially Potentially do you think he's gonna go there?

1:14:20Well, I mean there are people there are people at DoD and at HHS, but I don't think we've had a readout from any of those people yet, right? I mean all of this other stuff is huge. It's a number if you look at their list on the ghost the doge tracker on the website HHS is the number one department of savings right now. They've got the contracts Yeah, the fences okay, okay So they are they are fine. Well remember what they're doing is they're just cutting wasteful contracts. So they're cutting stupid stuff that aren't all the discretionary stuff all the bullshit that's not used or not needed. No, no, but my point is like all of these things are still.

1:14:52These are not a line item appropriations right because you can't cut those. Well, here you can see the Department of the Interior had a $3 billion contract for refugee resettlement with a company called family endeavors in. And so they put that as the number one contract they cut on the website saves 2 .9 billion total Treasury they cut a deal with a company called Centennial Technologies, which is an enterprise software company saves 1 .9 billion dollars Centennial technologies mind. I mean that's the thing you go into this stuff. You can who can disappear in that It's a these are all like small you can click on it shows you the contract here.

1:15:29It's well I'm gonna go and try to find this Centennial Technologies. Who are these guys? You're gonna invest. Yeah Okay, should we talk, you want to still talk a little Tesla or you think we should move to the science corner? What I would say quickly on Tesla's, I would encourage all of you guys to try FSD. It's a new thing you've discovered. This is the reason I caught my Tesla. I've been using it for quality. The quality of FSD is just so good. Yeah, but you never turned it on. You just set it in the pre thing. No, you use it all the time. It is just an incredible thing. I don't I think like there was like a revivate probably in like the last month or two That I think took it from like a 98 to like 99 .5 or something It's just like there's just very few disengagement Okay, so are you believer that we that Tesla's doing real robot taxes in two years?

1:16:20Oh, yeah, yeah, I mean like right now my car is effectively a robotoxy The shity is part about my Tesla experience is I have to hold the frickin steering wheel and look ahead because this camera's always looking at me. My wife, it's so funny, she'll come home and she'll be angry because she got suspended because she was looking away and looking on her phone and they turn it off. They punish you. Tesla punishes you if you look away too often. They put you in time out for like, I don't know how many days or whatever. That's the worst part about the experience because it is so good. You're just like, oh, can I just take my hands off the wheel and just do something else?

1:16:57Well, there's a lot of videos getting posted on Twitter of FSD being on and then the car drives into the sunlight and at a certain angle when the sun hits the cameras The car goes into an emergency disconnect on FSD and I've had that happen. So I know it's true. I know it's real so It is a bit of a risk with the camera only mode on how Tesla operates FSD if they can actually run a full You know never to disengage robot taxi service like Waymo does I can't still push a lot on them. Is that what you're doing? I don't, that's the word on Twitter, which is watch out. Because without LIDAR, you're going to have a lot of disengagement.

1:17:32Elon, Elon's never doing LIDAR. Never doing LIDAR. Here's an interesting factoid. I've been working with somebody here on trying to figure out what does next generation AI data centers look like? And do you build like inference pops all over the country? And I talked to some folks at Waymo. I talked to Takedra. And what's interesting is the Waymo approach is they don't need pops anywhere because all of the models are on board. So these things go fully autonomous units out into the wild. They can make every decision themselves. They have the LiDAR and then they come back to the fleet and then they can re -sync the models.

1:18:10Whereas everything else, particularly if you have human intervention, but if you have human intervention, so all of the food delivery folks that have like central knocks of people that can engage in intervene, they need all these real -time ability so that things are multi -millisecond latency maximum. Awesome. Should we go to the science corner, my friend? Yeah, if you're ready for it. I'm ready. Today's science corner is on a discovery of a massive thorium reserve in China and a disclosed molten salt reactor in China that's been running for some time. So, and I'd like to... Before you... Let me do the T for this.

1:18:52Freeberg, tell us about these thorium reactors. I think the most important thing that everybody should know before I tee this up for Freeberg is that what he's going to talk about is a material called thorium, which doesn't split. It doesn't release energy unless it absorbs a neutron and then it transmutes to uranium And by this, what I mean is this is a trans that everybody should be able to get behind. Over to you. Hey, he got it. He got it. You get it, Andrew? I got it. It's a beautiful thing. I don't think we brought it up in Science Corner before. But apparently there was a giant thorium deposit discovered in Inner Mongolia that has enough thorium to effectively power the entirety of China for 60 ,000 years.

1:19:42It was made by the Bayon obo mining complex. it's a million ton reserve in intermongolia. And so thorium is much more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium, which is what we've historically used for fission reactors and what we use today for all of their even new generation nuclear fission reactors. And for a long time folks have talked about building a thorium reactor. There's a lot of challenges with building a thorium reactor. It's a new set of systems. but if you build a molten salt thorium reactor, you can ultimately produce energy in a way that doesn't actually have the risk of a meltdown.

1:20:20It can passively shut itself down. It's not high pressure, so it can't explode. So it's technically much safer, much more reliable way of producing power with a much more abundant fuel source. And people in the US have been talking about building these thorium molten salt reactors for decades. In fact, in 2009, the US Geological Survey in the United States went out and did a study to identify how much thorium existed just in the continental North American region. Turns out the US has about 64 ,000 tons. Canada has 172 ,000 tons of thorium reserves. And China just discovered a million tons in this one region.

1:20:57But the amount of thorium that we have in the United States is enough to power our country for centuries. So in China, it turns out they built a molten salt reactor. This was another secret. They've been operating it now for some time. Last June, while the reactor was running, they replaced the fuel. So it basically showed continuous use of the reactor without needing to do a shutdown and refueling cycle. It's a two megawatt experimental unit and they're actually building and planning to take live a 10 megawatt unit by 2030. So this was all shared in a private meeting. It got out. The discovery in Inner Mongolia was also kept confidential for I think nearly two years.

1:21:39And then it got reported out. And after it got reported out, it was confirmed ultimately in a government meeting. And that's how we know about it now. But I think this just is this another kind of critical point about this. Once China gets this to in 10 megawatt system running. This allows for very small, very modular nuclear reactor is using a very abundant fuel source that can be quickly built, stood up, and safely operated in a distributed way. You don't need to have one gigawatt, which is a thousand megawatt station running centrally, and then you've got to have a big construction project invested into build and operate this thing.

1:22:14You can have many small reactors split around neighborhoods, split around cities, and so on. This is not built into China's energy projection. So they actually have an electricity forecast that over the next 15 years gets them from three terro lots of electricity production to eight. And that's through a combination of solar, hydroelectric, and then the gentry and gen 4 traditional uranium nuclear reactors that they're building out. So if you add this in, it provides even more or perhaps lower cost or more distributed energy production capacity than is even provided in the forecasts today. Again, this is, I think, one of the base drivers that is part of the compounding effect of China's economic advantage for this century is energy, energy production, the cost of building new energy production systems, and the cost to operate those energy production systems.

1:23:04Can I say something about the Hu Jintao conversation about picking national champions and getting focused? This was an area that China chose, and now, you know, the US finds itself years behind on a technology that we invented, right? So this was research that happened at Oak Ridge National Lab. That's right. We pioneered this decades ago and then we shelved it. And then the person in China that let it gave credit to the United States and basically said, you know, Americans let the research wait for the right successor. We were that successor. That's what he said in quotes. So, you know, here we are.

1:23:43We invent this cutting edge technology. It's a huge leap in innovation, but they can get organized. We put a regulatory fence around it and we blocked it from getting They organize and they're like, you know what, we can just do this and we'll figure this out. Yeah, it's really, it's really, they portion itself goal here. They have an infinite thorium reserve. They don't need to refine it. One of the key advantages of thorium is you don't need to go through a refining process. In uranium, you have a very expensive, very difficult kind of refinement process where you end up, I think, getting less than 1 % of that uranium that you pull out can actually be used as fissile.

1:24:20and you have to enrich down to the uranium to find the fissile material. With thorium, 100 % of it can be used as fuel. So it's a very low cost, very easy kind of fuel source that can be very quickly kind of put into production if we actually build out the supply chain and build out the energy systems to utilize it. So it's a real kind of reinvention of a nuclear energy technology, and this will take off. I mean, once this experimental reactor is working, just take a potential one, reactor after going boom. Imagine how much fundamental leaps in science that we have funded, that are just basically gathering dust or fallen through the cracks that other countries are using right now and probably a little bit snickering behind our backs about the fact that we did all of this work and then they were able to take advantage of it.

1:25:12Well here I'll show you here's another, let me put this in the group chat real quick. But how much do this stuff, do we have this, I mean, what's our ability to actually do this? We invented it. We invented it. We invented it. We invented it. Well, the big problem has been the regulatory fencing we put around the dander. So there's a bunch of indistribute. There's forums. Yeah. There's pronouns. There's all kinds of stuff. And just speaking to this point, so we've talked in the past about nuclear fusion. So Andrew, this is, I don't know how familiar you are, but fusion is different than fission.

1:25:43Fission is where you take a heavy element like uranium or thorium in a breaks and you release energy. Fusion is where you take a light element like hydrogen, you accelerate it, you make it really dense and you jam the protons together and when you jam those protons together they fuse. So hydrogen turns into helium, this is what goes on in the sun and energy is released in a different form through accelerated neutrons. We capture that energy, we make electricity. So fusion is this next gen technology where we could theoretically just use water from the ocean to create all the electricity we need on planet Earth, 10 meter by 10 meter by 10 meter of water makes all the power the entire planet uses every year.

1:26:20That's what you could ultimately do with fusion technology. So it turns out this is a satellite photo that discovered a very large scale fusion research center in Mianyang, China, which we did not know about. That was just kind of stumbled upon. It turns out it's the largest fusion reactor experimental facility in the world now. 50 % larger than the National Ignition Facility run in the United States. not only is China getting this new energy infrastructure built with all of the stuff that was discovered last century, but they are now getting ahead of us on the new discoveries to be made in the next gen of energy systems, which is fusion, which at some point the century will work and will end up having this ability to unlock effectively unlimited free energy.

1:27:01And these are compounding value craters. China, ultimately, if they can make new energy systems cheaper than the United States, scale them faster, they will ultimately have much cheaper, much higher volumes of electricity, which gives them the advantage of manufacturing and production and transportation and everything. And that's where the economic advantage will ultimately accrue to them. So this is, I think, key to the strategic puzzle on what's going to happen in the Great Race with China this century is the build out of electricity and the cost of that build out. So the regulatory constraints need to be addressed first and foremost.

1:27:37That's in my opinion, the number one mission critical strategic imperative for the United States right now. Awesome. Yeah. Awesome. That's just a red flag on China science corner for the day. Dorian is real. Dorian men are so how was it Andrew? How do you like hanging out with the best? I love it. Yeah, you know, I'm still getting used to it. Still getting used to the whole flow. Trying to figure out how you guys all roll, but it's good. It's good. It's good. Do the do the outro. You got to do your out. You got to do the outro. I got a do the outro. You guys do the Outro come on your show do the outro Come and I'm gonna get you What is the I'll do I've never done an outtrial.

1:28:18I'll be you do the outro on behalf of our cryptos are David Sacks um our Principanic attacks and sultan of science David Freiberd our new bestie guestie and I'm like Sorcan. Thank you. I am your chairman dictator, Mothpolly Hapatia. Thank you for listening to the All -In podcast. We'll see you next time. Love you, Love you. Bye. Bye. Thanks guys. That was a lot of fun. Awesome. We're like your winners ride. I'm going to the toilet. Rainman David's out. I'm going to the toilet. And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just got crazy with it. I'm going to the toilet. I'm going to the toilet.

1:29:04What? What?

1:29:07Besties are gone. I'm going to the toilet. That's my dog. Can you give it a wish? You're driving away. Sit next. I'm going to the toilet. Oh man. My ham is the actual meat. We should all just get a room and just have one big hug or two because they're all just like this like sexual tension But we just need to release that out What your feet, what your feet Be your feet, what? We need to get my feet I'm doing all this

1:29:40I'm doing all this