Social Media & Child Safety, Elon's Paycheck, and Guest Conor Dougherty

23:58He's not, all roads lead to the same place. 65 % of companies are incorporated in Delaware because of their law, you know, their friendly, business-friendly laws, et cetera. He's going to have to get, he's going to have to appoint new people to the board who serve on, and one of them's going to have to serve on the compensation committee and such that - Can you imagine? I'd be like, no, thank you. Well, I actually think you'll be able to, I think there's a lot of people. It's like no one ever said that anyone would be in Trump's cabinet. I think the seduction to be near the seat of power is too huge for people.

24:26I wouldn't be a director at that company. Saved my life. I mean, it's just - Yeah, but here's the bad news, Kara. Someone who served on a lot of boards, you get DNO insurance. Do you realize the people who served on Enron's board, they had to give some of their compensation. You basically have to murder people to get in trouble as a board member. They're so protected. That's why this ruling is amazing, don't you think? That's why, because it's usually so cozy. I have never seen this before. I have never seen a compensation package reject it. And it's retroactive. He's not going to lose money because he hasn't exercised the options.

25:08But not only is he not getting the additional$75 billion he's been trying to blackmail the board from, I mean, there's no way they can give him that money now. I mean, they look so stupid. He's going to have to appoint something resembling an independent director to the compensation committee. Otherwise, the next comp package is going to be rejected. This Chancellor McCormick, I think that's how you refer to her. She's just not impressed by Elon. He was attacking her, of course, because she's a woman who's pushing back on him. She's like, no, I'm going to look at the law and I'm going to interpret the law.

25:42And I need to send a signal to every board, even the board of hot companies with a guy who tweets all day that they have an obligation to be fiduciaries. This is a good ruling for corporate governance and for other corporations because CEO pay has accelerated from 27 times an average worker salary to over 350 in the last 40 years. And some of it is the coziness you talk about. Some of it is just people are more comfortable with people making billions of dollars, whatever it might be. But this is, yeah, this is, I love this ruling and I think she's fantastic. Yeah, she is. She's great. She just has a sense of like, I'm over you.

26:22I'm not, I've never was under you, but I'm way over you kind of thing. Anyway, we'll see what goes on. He's going to do his antics, his loud mouth. He's like, how many rules can you just keep breaking and pretend you're, you know, you know, it drives me crazy. This idea that he's some bold speaker of truth as my wife. That's her expression. He's not a bold speaker of truth. He's just a toddler. He's turning into a cautionary tale because he is. There's just no getting around it. He is a bold, visionary genius when it comes to products and risk-taking. I think on the whole, he's been good for the world.

26:55I wouldn't want to press a button where he just never immigrated to America. He's going to be, you got to give the guy his due. But he's just totally, he's a cautionary tale about how power corrupts and how people, when they don't surround themselves with guardrails and they don't listen to anybody. There was only a book that was coming out in three weeks that talked about this in detail. Oh, God. Burn book from Carol Swisher. Is there an index? Because I just want to see what you say about me. I'm not really interested in the book. No, I don't have an index. I don't have an index. And in fact, at the index part, I go.

27:27And I said this, and I ended up, I was right. I was right. You are in it, but it says in the index. You refer to me as your landlord? Yes, my landlord. There's a whole, you get more than most people. I'll tell you that. Not anybody gets much. Well, lucky me. Yes, it's true. It's all very kind to you, I would say. Anyway, I should just send you one, shouldn't I? Okay. I should have brought you one last time. Anyway. Will you sign it for me? That would be such an honor. Oh, my God. You're not even coming to the book party you're throwing for me. Well, it's because I want to hang out with my mixed reality headset.

27:55Well, you could wear it there. You could wear it there. In any case, I can't believe you're having a book party for me and not showing up. I didn't agree to have it. You put my name on the thing. No, I asked you. You said yes. Yeah, right. When you say yes, God Galloway, that usually means yes. You have become my wife. And that is when you ask me for something, I just nod. I don't even listen to what you're asking. Sure. Yeah. Nonetheless. Nonetheless. They're putting me up at a hotel for my book stuff, so I don't even have to stay at your place. Anyway, I want to, though. Maybe I'll just go down there.

28:25Where are you staying? I know New York hotels really well. I don't know. This is Simon and Schuster's doing it. Anyway, they need me at Midtown because I got to go on The View in case you're interested. Oh, that's exciting. You're going on The View? I know. I'm so excited. I'm really excited. I like the conservative one. What's her name? Alyssa. Yeah. Yeah. I think she's smart. She's great. She's great. She's terrific. I want Meghan McCain back. Oh, no, thank you. Anyway, I want to sit next to Whoopi or Hit Me or something. Whoopi. All right, Scott, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk about tech CEOs getting grilled on Capitol Hill.

28:54This was quite a spectacle. And there's a lot of spectacles on Capitol Hill. And we'll chat with New York Times reporter Connor Doherty about a faceoff between billionaires and local landowners to build a brand new city in California. There is a lot to talk about when we talk about Donald Trump and Jimmy Kimmel. One big question I've got is why, in 2025, are late-night TV shows, like Jimmy Kimmel's show, still on TV? Even in our diminished times, Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, they're just some of the biggest faces of their networks. If you start taking the biggest faces off your networks, you might save some nickels and dimes.

29:38But what are you even anymore? What even is your brand anymore? I'm Peter Kafka, the host of Channels. And that was James Ponowozik, the TV critic for The New York Times. This week, we're talking about Trump and Kimmel, free speech, and a TV format that's remained surprisingly durable for now. That's This Week on Channels, wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Scott, we're back with our second big story. Quite remarkable, the CEOs of Meta, X, TikTok, Snap, and Discord faced the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. They were all there for a hearing on child safety that got pretty heated.

30:18Senators called out the CEOs for failing to protect children from being subjected to sexual abuse and exploitation on the social platforms. What a shock. while the CEOs defended their safety measures. Let's listen to Lindsey Graham's opening statement, which was a message directly from Mark Zuckerberg, who got a lion's share of the attacks. Mr. Zuckerberg, you and the companies before us, I know you don't mean it to be so, but you have blood on your hands. You have a product. You have a product that's killing people. When we had cigarettes killing people, We did some about it. Maybe not enough.

30:57You're going to talk about guns. We have the ATF. Nothing here. There's not a damn thing anybody can do about it. You can't be sued. You can't be sued. Just the penny just dropped for Senator Graham on this. I've been talking about for years or decades, really. What did you think of the hearing and how do you think the CEOs came across the moment that's getting most attention? Zuckerberg was asked by Senator Josh Hawley to apologize to parents in the audience whose children died of causes related to social media. They had their photographs up. It was quite dramatic from a visual point of view.

31:29Zuckerberg turned around and said, quote, I'm sorry for everything you have all been through. No one should have to go through the things your families have suffered. He didn't say I'm sorry for what I did at all. That said, Congress, of course, as usual, likes to be performative and do nothing. They haven't done anything. They've done privacy bills. The safety bills are without teeth. Several senators called for the repeal of Section 230. Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin ended the hearing by calling for patches of a series of bills to place more liability on these platforms, which you and I have called for.

32:05Both Linda Iaccarino from X and SNAPS Evan Spiegel committed to supporting the kids' online safety acts, which is called COSA. Scott, thoughts as you watch this unfold? I have a lot of thoughts. All right, let's go. Go for it. First off, just in terms of the structure here, having Linda Yaccarino and not Alphabet on this, does her make no sense. I mean, Linda Yaccarino, to her credit, has instituted the ultimate policy to protect teens, and that is they have become totally irrelevant to teens. She's like in favor of the stuff. I mean, it was like if we were going to do a panel on teen trends and you invited the head of Buick.

32:45I mean, she's totally irrelevant when it comes to teens. What made for great theater was him standing up and saying, I apologize. But what would have been more effective and more the truth is if the parents had said, now turn around and ask the people why they haven't fucking done anything. because while Mark Zuckerberg is culpable, the culprits are the people sitting up there with their mics who are elected representatives who are charged with preventing a tragedy of the commons. And their public flogging, which we see every three months, so they can get a viral clip on one of the platforms they supposedly are so upset with and raise more money.

33:30If they aren't protecting our children, then what exactly are they supposed to be doing? And let's be clear, if you get angry enough and Mark Zuckerberg leaves, there are other people. There are a million Mark Zuckerbergs and Sheryl Sandbergs who are smart and will elegantly figure out a way to create delay in obfuscation as they harm our children. Yeah, this is not a new story. People in the cigarette industry, there is no shortage of people who will come up with rationalizations. Their job is to make money. Quite frankly, they are doing their jobs. It's the senators who are not doing their jobs.

34:05So, okay, enough already, Lindsay. What the fuck are you going to do? It's like someone comes off the field at a Premier League game and says, this is the refereeing out there was so horrible that it has totally destroyed the game. And the person shitposting the officiating is wearing a black and white jersey. They're the referee. All right. It's like when Senator Warren complains about When I come in a call, it's like, Senator, you've been a senator when we controlled all three houses and you haven't figured out a way to create, restore a progressive tax structure. Like, whose fault is this? One of the bills did pass in the Senate and then it goes to the House and dies.

34:41You know, I mean, one of the people that actually the only person I would give credit for is Amy Klobuchar, who's tried to pass bills. She's trying. She's tried. She got kind of weepy. She's like, I'm getting freaking sick and tired of this bullshit. But she gets her knees cut off from her by all the other politicians up there. They just don't let it go. And at this point, I think I'm excited to hear what she says, because I think she's making the effort and it doesn't happen, whether it's in the House or the Senate. But you're right. This should be at the feet of these legislators. And they love to do these.

35:15You know, it was dramatic when Mark did that. It was. But it was there. It's still their fault. Yeah. In 10 years, looking back on this era, I'm fairly certain we'll think, okay, the weaponization of our elections, the concentration of power, making our discourse more coarse, we'll regret all these things. But the things we will really be ashamed of is we'll think, how did we let this happen to our children? And when you think about, and I've brought this up several times, 14-year-old girl in the UK goes to her room with her phone. She's bullied. Starts having thoughts of suicidal ideation. the algorithms pick up on this and send her an email that says, quote, here are some images on suicide we thought you might be interested in.

35:55And it's pictures of razors, nooses, and pills, and the parents walk into the next morning in that room and she's gone. When that happens, you have to have laws where someone will go to jail. None of this ends. None of this. There are more CEOs who will find reasons to delay and obfuscate and hire more lobbyists than there are standing U.S. senators and overwhelm Senator Klobuchar's office. None of this stops until these weak, incredibly ineffectual, feckless elected officials pass laws, and that's not even enough. One of these individuals needs to do a perp walk. None of this ends. The fines can't be big enough.

36:42Their lobbyists are too powerful. The only way this stops is when one of them shows up in an orange jumpsuit. That's it. Well, they don't have liability, Scott. That's the whole point. And of course, the first thing they do is like, let's get all of 230. I was like, oh, so you're going to hammer something rather than do your job, which is a sophisticated legislative solution here, of which there have been dozens and dozens of bills proposed. And none of them passed, right? None of them ever passed. and it's because of money. And Senator Klobuchar had called me actually and said, this year, Kara, it's getting done.

37:17And then when it didn't, we talked and she said the money just went right to, you know, and they didn't resist. They didn't resist whatever area they were in. They were too terrified of the lobbying and the money to stand up and do the right thing. You know, it didn't do her any favors, by the way. She's up for reelection, by the way. I'm sure they're coming at her. um so uh you know she's very popular in that state so probably won't be an issue but uh she was like they just didn't resist the money and then the leadership didn't put it on you know put it in the place where it could be successful um either in the house or the senate yeah this is i mean all the stuff we talk about if you have kids none none of the shit we talk about means anything if your kid's not doing well and i mean i i started getting upset on threats and talking about it and a lot of my comments were, someone said something very cogent.

38:10They said, and now do guns. And it's, what are these, if these folks aren't there to protect our children, why exactly are they collecting a paycheck? I thought Zuckerberg looked more upset, and not just for himself. I mean, I think that for some reason, I know it sounds crazy, he looked older, right? Didn't he suddenly look older or his age or something? Maybe it was the hair, or I know he's been recovering from his fighting knee problem. But it felt like, you know, when I did that interview where I sort of demanded that he stop helping Holocaust deniers get so much purchase on the platform, and he went on and on about free speech, and then two years later, after, you know, vats and vats of anti-Semitism spilled everywhere, then changed his mind and did exactly what I had recommended, which was to take them off the platform.

39:03He kind of had that look in his eye, like, what have I done? Right? He didn't say it, but I - I think you're giving him way too much credit. I'm not. I'm not. I don't think I am. He looked like, this is my legacy. Like, you know what I mean? He's not cynical, like you think, but - Well, and his legacy as being the most - I'm not giving him a purchase. I've been hugely hard on him. I don't care if it's his youth. He's going to go down in history, along with Sheryl Sandberg, as having done more damage to our youth than any two individuals in the history of America. Who's done more damage? Maybe the people who, I don't know, who invented sugary, salty snacks?

39:38I don't know what it is. The point I was making is he might do more than they will. That's dangerous to think that way, Kara. I don't think he's going to, but he's the only one that can because they won't do anything. We keep waiting for their better angels to show up. They don't. I agree. They don't. And by the way, if they did, he might get so upset and tired, he would get fired and we'll find another mendacious fuck who pretends to be an empathetic, caring person. This requires laws. Full stop. Yeah. Those pictures were haunting of the kids. In America, to have money and power is to be loved.

40:12We all want to be loved and we will do whatever is required to be loved within the confines of the law. So the thing that needs to change here are the laws. and you could, and it just wouldn't be that goddamn hard. Remove Section 230 protection for content algorithmically elevated that has to do with elections, healthcare, and anything involving kids. Age-gate social media, for God's sakes. We can age. We age-gate pornography. You can't get a driver's license under the age of 16. Instagram begins from a place of perversion, and that perversion ends up hurting our boys and girls, specifically our girls.

40:47Do you realize? And he lied to Congress. My colleague Jonathan Haidt reviewed 100 behavioral and longitudinal studies, and he found, among other things, that people who are heavy users of social media are twice as likely to try and commit suicide than those that are light users. This shit is so dangerous and so brutal, and these individuals can't figure out a way to pass laws to protect them. No, and then they make a passing reference to cigarettes. He had killed a lot of people, Lindsay, just so you know, and it did take you too long. And you were in their pockets for too long. And some of them I think are genuine.

41:26Senator Durbin, Senators Klobuchar. I even think Senator Blackburn is genuine. But some of these people, including Senator Graham and Senator Cruz, they like give their speech to try and get on TikTok. And then they go play golf with these folks. Look at he's giving them money. Ted Cruz is one that shut down a bunch of stuff because it lacked innovation. Anyway, like Amy Klobuchar, we are sick and tired of being sick and tired. Anyway, we'll see what goes on. Probably nothing. And we'll have to deal with attorney generals and others who will probably do more of the work of this in the end, as they did with opiates.

42:00Same thing. Okay, Scott, let's go to our friend of Pivot. it. Connor Doherty is a reporter for the New York Times who covers economics and housing. His latest piece digs into the fascinating story of a company backed by Silicon Valley bigwigs trying to build a city from scratch in Solano County, California, and facing off against local landowners. I love this story so much. And it's up in Vacaville, which is Cowville. For anyone who knows California. This is a very windswept, dusty part of the above it, but quite beautiful in a lot of ways. Connor, welcome. Thank you for having me. Yes, it is a bonkers story.

42:39I remember when I first got the scoop, I was like, I probably never had something more nailed down when I published it. And I still was like, is this all wrong? Because it just sounds too weird to be real. Yeah. Yeah. You wrote the story last summer of this mystery of this company that they created, this land grab that was going on. For people who don't know, for a long time, nobody knew who was buying this land. There were theories. Some was trying to spy on a nearby Air Force base or build a new Disneyland. That's always a good guess, Disneyland. That happened in Washington, I know. Some of the financial backers here include venture capitalists Michael Moritz, Mark Andreessen, and Lorraine Powell Jobs.

43:19So explain what's happening exactly. Okay, cool. So I'll just give you a quick rewind, which is that there's, as you said, this wind swept area where people have sheep and cattle farms and they grow kind of alfalfa and things like that. And it's a lot of kind of generational families. People have been there since the 18 whatever, 70s, 80s. And not a lot of land trades hands out there, right? All of a sudden, this mysterious company not only starts buying land, starts buying a lot of it in amounts no one has ever seen. So typical amount that someone would buy in that area is like 300, 400 acres might trade hands a year.

43:57Suddenly someone's buying 10 ,000 a year and almost within three years is the largest landowner in the entire county and has like 50, 60 ,000 acres, which is about twice the size of San Francisco. But nobody could figure out who this company was, not a single person who worked for it, not a single person who owned it. And it was, as you said, this big mystery. And as the land started to surround the Air Force Base, Congress and I started Travis Air Force Base out there, Congress and other people got really freaked out. Eventually, I was able to break the story that it was these Silicon Valley people and that they had this plan to build the city.

44:35OK, now where let me ask you, what made you start digging into this? Was that was who alerted you? I mean, obviously, this mystery of who this company was, was out there. I was by no means the first person to be alarmed by that. Essentially, I got a tip that it might be not Chinese spies, which is what members of Congress were insinuating or at least implying. And that led me down a path, I guess, is the way I would say. In the article, you mentioned a 2017 letter to potential investors, your latest article on this, saying if done right, the project could help relieve congestion and housing prices in the Bay Area, which you've been writing about forever.

45:13Yes. And the letter also mentions a potential to experiment with new types of governance, even though it's in a place that already has government. I think I don't want to make too much of that. I mean, I think if you create your own city, you can choose whether or not to incorporate it. But obviously, there are cities like Irvine and other places where they've had different kinds of covenants and things. I mean, you know, there are ways in which you can sort of, I mean, you can't live outside the state of California rules. But anyway, the point is this. After we broke the story, they go from, I should say, me and my colleague Aaron Griffith broke it together.

45:50After we broke this story, they have now gone from total secrecy to like charm offensive. They've opened up multiple offices across the county. If you drive through Solano now up 80 on the way to Sacramento, you will pass multiple California Forever billboards. Oh, they're now going by this name, California Forever. And I could, as you know from our past conversations, I could bore you for many, many, many hours about all the things that stand between their intention to try to build on a piece of land and the reality of that. But the really high stakes kind of grabby thing is that they are going to have to do an initiative, which is that they're going to have to ask all of the Solano County voters, will you give us permission to do this?

46:40It's like a little bit more complicated than that, but like, in effect, they're going to try to qualify a ballot initiative, which means they, as you are. Which is how California government is. But as you well know, anytime anyone goes to a supermarket or church or any kind of busy area, they will be assaulted by people with clipboards who will say, would you like to sign this thing? They will probably, I mean, I don't see how they wouldn't qualify. You can pay these signature collectors to do it. And then there will be in November, you know, at the same time that there's another notable election happening, there will be a vote.

47:15And the vote will, I mean, technically speaking, the vote will sort of say, will you amend certain Solano County laws to allow people to build out there? And that will just be the first step. But if they get that vote, even though that's not like administratively the hugest hurdle that they, or it's just one little hurdle, it would change the kind of vibe. It would sort of say, well, you got a majority of the county to say, yes, we want this. That would inevitably put a lot of pressure on the local government. I don't see how they could do this without also state government. But anyway, so the point is there's a lot ahead of them, but this vote would totally change the narrative and give them huge ammunition.

48:01Yep. And they have money and means. Scott? Yeah, Connor, nice to meet you. I loved your, you wrote an article on The Last of Us, and I remember reading it and thinking this is a great article. Thank you so much. Which one, the movie or the video game? About how you were saying this might be a new model for a new business model, I believe. You're talking about if The Last of Us could become, if that's a new model for how content gets repurposed. I have low-key, as a fanboy of The Last of Us, I've written. That's like my secondary beat. So anyway, thank you for saying that. I love that show. End the game.

48:33Yeah, I love it too. Anyways, it's nice to meet you. So I'll put forward a thesis and I want you to respond to it. I think this is a great thing. And I understand that people have a healthy gag reflex when they hear about powerful people doing stuff under the cover of DART. We can understand why they were trying to do that. They didn't want to raise the prices when people knew billionaires were buying up the land. But we have a crisis in the United States where housing's gone from 290 ,000 on average to 420 just from pre to post-pandemic. Young people aren't forming houses or households because they can't afford housing.

49:05And I don't mind that this is a way to build profits. I don't think, I'm not even sure that's their real intention. I think they see this nimbyist rejectionist culture that has arrived to every local review board where they can't get housing permits approved. And we need a massive increase in the surplus of the supply of housing stock. So I love this. Where am I wrong? So you're not necessarily, I mean, let me put it this way, That is not a fringe opinion. That's not an invalid analysis. Let's just step back a second. California, as you said, has been having this huge housing crisis. And the state legislation, various people have done a lot of work to try to fix it, but it's extremely slow.

49:52And even if they changed every law right away and whatever, right, it's just very difficult to build within a city. Even beyond all the political stuff, it's just like hard to drive a construction truck up hills and around narrow corners and whatever. You know, when you want to build massive amounts of housing, as we did after the baby boom, you go to the middle of nowhere, not just because the land is cheap and stuff, but because, you know, for real true efficiency reasons, it's just much easier to build on what they call greenfield, which means, you know, an empty plot, basically, right? Which is different from infill, which means building like in the middle of a neighborhood that is there.

50:35So their premise, so I interviewed this guy, Jan Schremek, who's running this whole thing. He basically said, I think infill is a great idea. He's European. He's like denser cities. I'm all for it. I just don't believe any of this can move fast enough to make any real dent in California's problem. So that is not in any way, shape or form an invalid view. You know, the people who would disagree with that view would even agree as the world currently stands, that's a completely what he is saying is completely true. Now, there are people who would say, I want that to be not true. And thus, I am concentrating on my efforts on making it easier to build in a place like San Francisco.

51:21But his read of the current situation is essentially unassailable in terms of like, how would you actually build large amounts of housing units, you know, in a short amount of time? Right. So I think, Scott, you're totally right. I mean, obviously, my job as a journalist is to cover sort of how this happens, the process. But what's the wrong thing there? Because what it has on it is rich people know better. Really rich people can make the cities they want. I think that's the vibe, especially with Elon down in Texas doing a similar thing with his strange little town, running roughshod over people, et cetera, et cetera.

52:03So, no. So that was just what I was about to sort of try to get into, which is like, as a matter of policy, it's hard to argue that some amount of, quote unquote, greenfield or building in the middle of nowhere, building new cities, whatever, would probably have to be part of the solution in California. And the God's honest truth is we already do tons of that. I mean, if you drive to LA, which of course I now do more of because my dad still lives in San Francisco, you pass, you know, through Tracy, Lathrop, these massive subdivisions that look like your classic kind of cul-de-sac, windy, whatever, you know, they build their own schools, all that sort of thing.

52:40So they're just trying to do that, but in a more urban dense kind of way. Anyway, so I but the flip side, as Kaira said, is you start to get into questions of, well, at what cost kind of politically, meaning if it becomes that, you know, the way to get new building done is to have billions of dollars to buy land in the middle of nowhere to pay signature collectors to get whatever you want on the ballot and then run, you know, probably one of the more expensive campaigns in the history of the United States. entire county, then you're eventually going to need a bunch of state, you know, help, which they have plenty of money to hire lobbyists and whatever for.

53:22If that's the only way we can build, right, is that the world we want to live in? You know, that's a world. So I think people who are very alarmed by how this happened and the sort of implications of how they're going to kind of try to, you know, flood the political system with money to get over all these things that are hard. I totally understand people who think that worries me. Also some ideas about how, you know, giving up on cities, I think. A lot of these, some of them, not all of them, have sort of been not, well, actually not Mike Moritz. He hasn't been, but it's this bashing the city that exists now.

53:58I don't think this one is that, though. I just don't. I don't either. I don't either with these particular people. But the one in Texas with Elon seems weird, although then their celebration with Disney, which wasn't as good. You know, they had a lot more problems. You know, the idea of creating cities from nowhere is not a new, fresh thing. That one in Brazil, you know, it's been going on. It's this idea. The way it's been presented, I think, is from a PR perspective problematic. It's this problematic, it's this sort of beautiful city that we can do better and everyone will have delicious organic grapes.

54:29You know what I mean? It has that vibe to it. But this isn't, I mean, I think like a lot of this is around communications and the fact that these individuals have established such terrible reputations for themselves. So what Dan Gilbert is doing in Detroit, a billionaire comes in and starts buying up all of downtown Detroit. Eli Broad, basically another billionaire, kind of built Irvine by going in and buying up real estate. That was Donald Bren, actually. Oh, excuse me, Donald. Thank you, Connor. This isn't unusual for, you know, what I found is, I mean, it's swung so far to the incentives are for the incumbents, the current homeowners, to show up to review boards and come up with all sorts of reasons around concern for development.

55:12The development gets put off and the incumbents' housing prices go up because they artificially constrain supply. So the incentives are for the incumbents, the homeowners, to basically, quite frankly, drive up the prices for renters and young people. I just see it as another transfer of wealth from young to old. And if we wait on our lawmakers to maybe subsidize housing, but this feels to me like it's just so – we need a thousand of these types of initiatives. So I'm totally – and I hope I've made this clear. I'm of two minds about this. Scott, I agree with you in a lot of ways, and I could even go further.

55:53I mean, I think it's not bad for us to be constantly experimenting with where and how we live. You could imagine that they might do things like electrified streets, which would allow you to do self-driving cars in a way that would be basically like a track, meaning you could do it in a way that would be infinitely safer. You could imagine a scenario in which a place like this becomes really hot. People love how they live. And then it puts tons of pressure on other cities to reform how they do things because they need to make their streets safer or whatever. I mean, San Francisco has been talking about making its streets more bike-friendly for God knows how long, forever.

56:38They cannot move a single inch on it. And then you look at a city like Paris, which in three or four years basically completely changed the entire thing. Not a new city, Paris, right? Completely changed the entire thing for bike. So there is a sort of question of will, and something like competition from different kinds of models might change. So I think that's all great. The only hesitation I have, Scott, is when people say, it worries me that this is how the process is. It worries me that the only way you can get this done is kind of through this kind of imperious process. I think that's a fair critique.

57:16Now, what you seem to be saying is, well, but that's the situation. What are you going to do? Sit there and do nothing? I get that view too, but I just think my job is to kind of document how it happened. This guy who's doing it, how did he get these rich people to do this? I mean, I can see why it appeals to them because all these people are like, yeah, we can build a better city. You know, yeah, cool electrified streets. I can see the dinner party right now. But who is this guy? I don't have this like fully nailed down, but I have a feeling that I think it actually is maybe the opposite of what you're thinking, which is this.

57:52So his name is Jan Sremec. He's a guy from the Czech Republic. He wrote this little biography of himself, you know, typical Silicon Valley guy in the sense that he was very precocious, good at math, other things. Went to London School of Economics and was like a star trader at Goldman Sachs. He left Goldman Sachs to start a couple of startups. Didn't go very well. eventually finds himself in Silicon Valley and, you know, is part of a kind of milieu of, you know, youngish, smart, wealthy-ish people who are interested in big ideas. He's in a book club with people from Sequoia. He's good friends with Patrick and John Collison, who are the billionaire brother founders of Stripe.

58:31So he's like in this world of people. Who I may say loves to talk, but go ahead. Yeah, he's in that world, right? So he somehow goes out to Solano County. He's into fishing, and he is sort of interested in this land, which if you've ever been out there, it is sort of weird. And it's relatively flat. If you drive around and you're not a farmer, it looks like there's nothing out there. I mean, there are some sheep and some cattle, but it's not like packed or anything like that. Okay, so how did he get these people to do this? When you talked to him or when I interviewed him, his answers, and this might be part of a strategy, but mine, I also think it was real.

59:10His answer is like very spreadsheet. He's like, well, this land could be bought for this price. It's not super high value agricultural land. So if you think about it, a Napa Valley vineyard might be like as much as$500 ,000 an acre. This land is like 4 ,000 an acre. Now that it was much higher by the time it was about 4 ,000 when they started buying. So that's like the agricultural value of that land. He talks about how, oh, well, you know, it's pretty easy to protect this area from wildfires because it's just grass. So you could mow it, right? You know, there's not a lot of trees and all that.

59:45So he was doing the geek approach. Yeah, and he's like, it's not a huge earthquake area. On top of that, there are some long-range plans from the 50s in the Bay Area that earmarked that area as like, oh, this would be a good place to build. So I think his answer is sort of like, this is actually a very good place to do this if we could get the land and if we could bend the politics. I think his pitch to them is probably like, this is an undiscovered gem. The only thing is we have to wage a political gambit, basically. Yeah. Okay. Scott, last question. Well, so housing and the travails of really wealthy, powerful people is important.

1:00:31But what's profound, and I want you to talk about, is Nick Offerman's Emmy Award for Episode 3 of Season 1 of The Last of Us. And then a follow-up question. Is Pedro Pascal, in fact, the best leading man alive today? Your thoughts. You know, I think it's great. Well, Kara's going to be unhappy, but. That's OK. Answer very quickly. And then I will ask the last question very quickly because we got to go. This is important, Kara. Do not shame me. Do not shame me and Mr. Dougherty here. By the way, I don't know if you figured this out yet. It is a factual opinion that The Last of Us is the best video game adaptation in the history of the world.

1:01:13100%. But anyway. Connor, answer his question briefly. You know, anyway, I'm excited for season two. When does it come out? When does it come out? I mean, they're supposedly filming right now. Oh, my God, you have no idea. That last episode rattled my world. It was so violent and so upsetting. Well, you know, it's again, Kara wants us to stop talking about this. I bought that game the day it came out because I was so into Naughty Dog games. They have other games. And I like that weekend tried to make my wife watch the like little cinemas. As you play the game, it has little movies in it. Because I was like, this changed me.

1:01:52Because the last scene in the game is not terribly different than the one in the movie. But anyway. All right, you two. Looks like you can have a... I think you guys should move up to Vacaville together and play video games. Well, it's actually Rio Vista, but it's in the Vacaville area. I love the word Vacaville. I know, I do too. I wanted to name one of my children Vacaville. Okay, is this going to happen? Just very quickly, yes or no? 20 years it'll take, right? I think it'll take 10, 20 years. Here's the way, the only way I can imagine this happening quickly is this. As you know, there are these big environmental laws in California.

1:02:26One way you can get out of them is the state can basically say you get out of them, which they do for big baseball and football stadiums all the time. You could, that's conceivable. But man, would that be, well, it'd have to be like a whole legislative. I don't, maybe Newson, I actually don't know how it works, but the point is stadiums do it all the time. So you could do, this does happen and it happens in very special moments. I don't see how they could even put a shovel on the ground within three, four or five years without something like that. But that's why this vote is so important because we could enumerate hundreds of steps that we'll take to get them to get there.

1:03:06The question is, does anybody want, where's the pressure points? And if they have this vote, I think they start to have the pressure points. That's true. They'll find some rare prairie dog. I'm sure of it. That's what's going to happen here. We'll see what happens. This ain't Texas. It's California. In any case, fascinating stories. I'm really following it. I hope you're writing a book on this. We'll see. I'm hoping that would be great. I'd love to hear. It's really, when people do this and away from the billionaire part of it, which also makes it interesting too, it's really cool. If it was just any developer, it would be boring, but this is fascinating.

1:03:39Anyway, Connor, I recommend everyone reading them and obviously watching The Last of Us. Thank you. We look forward to seeing what happens. Thank you so much. Nice to meet you, Connor. You too, Scott. Bye. All right, Scott, that was interesting. I'm glad you guys had a man moment there, a little man bonding. One more quick break. We'll be back for predictions.

1:04:04Okay, Scott, let's hear a prediction. Okay, so this is an advocacy or a viewpoint wrapped in or posing as a prediction. But every manager's job and every leader's job is to allocate capital to a greater return than another manager or another leader. And the ultimate managers, if you will, is the U.S. government and the president. We have to decide whether they allocate our resources and our revenues and our military to a greater return than other leadership around the world. That's the whole shooting match. And my prediction is that in 10 or 20 years, we're going to look back and the greatest return on investment in this era wasn't an investment in NVIDIA.

1:04:49It wasn't even an investment in infrastructure. The greatest return on investment will be the$75 billion and the$92 billion that America and the EU, respectively, have invested in helping Ukraine push back on Russia. And in exchange for that investment, this is what we have received. We have received, one, that the EU has become a union for the first time and has, in a very purposeful way, said that we are an ally of the United States and that we can work together in pushing back autocracy and when individuals decide to try and invade and expand their borders. Two, this has effectively been, people are under the false impression that this is sending money over to Ukraine that is then immolated.

1:05:35It's not. This is an effective stimulus plan for the United States because of that, if you will,$160 billion. Approximately two-thirds, if not more of it, ends up in one of 38 states in the United States that builds military equipment. This has been effectively a stimulus plan for the United States. And we have given every autocrat, every autocrat, whether it's Xi or Kim Jong-un, we have given them all pause that if they want to invade an island off the coast, Taiwan, that a well-armed, technically sophisticated sovereign nation with the support of a unified West should not be fucked with. This is the greatest return on investment of capital.

1:06:24This is about 10 % of our military budget that we have recognized in decades. And I hope, and also this bullshit that the EU isn't paying their fair share. The EU has paid a greater - They pay more. They have invested a greater percentage of their GDP, much of it coming back to Western suppliers and weapons producers. We have battle-tested weapons technology. We have developed an entirely new technology around effective drones. This, I hope we continue to get, make one of the greatest investments on an ROI basis. And by the way, folks, we have not put a single boot on the ground here. So to not continue to make what will be seen as the greatest investment by the West in the last 30 or 40 years, just selfishly, just selfishly, we are investing in a stock that keeps going up and returning enormous dividends to the United States.

1:07:18And I I hope, I hope that Congress begins to frame this as the greatest return on investment or the greatest investment we have made in a long, long time. That canard about it, about them not paying their fair share. They pay more than their fair. They pay more than us. It's so ridiculous. They just keep repeating it. Not pay, invest. I want to use different. They've invested more than us. They've invested more than us. It's an investment. You're right. If we do not do this and Putin prevails, it'll be so costly later. It'll be spending this much money. It'll be trillions later when we're going to have to push them out of all kinds of places.

1:07:54And then it'll be U.S. troops going there. Anyway, the Ukrainians are doing our work for us. And of course, there's corruption. Of course, there's other issues. But Scott, spot on. I agree with you. Anyway, we want to hear from you. Send us your questions about business, tech, or whatever's on your mind. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT. Scott, that's the show. We'll be back on Tuesday with more Pivot. What are you doing for the weekend, Scott? Well, I'm going to Tulum. What am I doing? I'm doing a lot of MDMA, but I'm going to Tulum. Oh, cool.

1:08:27Soon the FDA might be approving MDMA for treatment, so that'll be a nice little time thing to talk about. Anyway, read us out then. Today's show was produced by Lara Neiman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie and her taught engineer this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Miel Severo. Nishat Kirwa is Vox Media's executive producer of audio. Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod. We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business.

1:09:00Cara, have a great weekend.