Is Meta Really Addictive?, Jetsons Prediction, Artemis II: Back to the Moon | Diet TBPN

Well, I've been addicted to social media lawsuits. I cannot get enough of these lawsuits. I keep reading about them, losing sleep.

And you're potentially filing your own lawsuit against the lawyers that were coming after these social media companies.

Yeah, yeah. So there's actually a profile in The Wall Street Journal, in The Exchange this weekend, the lawyer who beat Meta and Google. And it goes into some of his addictive techniques that are driving jurors crazy across the the country, uh, attorney Mark Lanier. He uses props. Come on, come on, what's more than props? He use— he also uses parables. Okay, what? Parables, metaphors, axioms, all of the above. Uh, he moonlights as a preacher, and it shows when he's taking on the world's most powerful companies. The 65-year-old came to court in downtown Los Angeles for closing arguments this month of one of the biggest trials of his career, armed with a parable of leavened bread. That feels like something that is designed to make it hard to rip yourself away from. Exactly. So he knew he needed a simple way to show a jury that Meta's Instagram and Google's YouTube were designed to be addictive and were harmful to young people. So the veteran plaintiff's lawyer—

can we just say he looks fantastic for 65?

He does look fantastic. Uh, and, and I— and as much as we're joking, I do think he's doing important work, and I do think, uh, there's a potentially really good outcome here that we'll, that we'll go into. Uh, but we're We're still having some fun. So the veteran plaintiff's lawyer from Texas showed them two grocery items, cupcakes and tortillas. Social media, he told the courtroom, was like the baking powder that makes a cake rise, exacerbating the struggles of already vulnerable teens. We have an interactor, an amplifier, something that blows it up. We have here social media that takes the vulnerable and goes after them in destructive ways. It's as easy as ABC. He's making the argument that social media is more like cupcakes than tortillas. Both contain flour, both are carb carbohydrate loaded, but one is bigger than the other or puffier, I suppose. The simple image delivered with Lanier's slight drawl helped convince a majority of jurors on Wednesday, the 9th day of deliberation. The jury found that Meta and YouTube were negligent in a case that accused the companies of designing their apps to be addictive and harmful to teens. And there's some interesting images, both of him walking into the courthouse with a large box of papers, clearly very anti-tech movement there. He's saying, I reject technology. This cannot be stored digitally. I'm using paper.

Which, I don't know, this seems a little bit risky because we've been addicted to the printed word in the past. So much so that we face criticism from people that said, hey, printing is unnecessary.

They did. You're not environmentally friendly.

But we were forced to adjust.

Maybe he can flip over to be our defense attorney when we are attacked. There is a courtroom sketch showing Lanier questioning former TVPN guest Adam Mosseri, the head of Meta's Instagram. A jury ordered the company to pay $3 million each in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. So I think it's $6 million across both. Firms, but it split compensatory and punitive damages. A now 20-year-old woman named Kaylee, whose last name was redacted in the case, she had testified that social media use that started when she was a child dominated her life for years and contributed to mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia. Very, very sad situation. Very unfortunate for her, of course. In a statement, Meta said it disagrees with the verdict and plans to pursue an appeal. Reducing something as complex as teen mental health to a single cause risks leaving the many broader issues teens face today unaddressed. Not mutually exclusive, but of course that is a reasonable position for Meta to take. Google also put out a statement. What do you think?

They're like, we're not even a social media company, we're a VR company. No, no, no. Google said misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.

That's true.

Got the wrong guy.

Yeah, I think of YouTube very much as as in the same world as social media, anyone can post, but it is severely lacking in some of the greatest features that social media sites like, you, if you, when you, when you actually become a YouTuber, you start putting out content that like there is sort of a, I don't know, like a group of made men on YouTube, like people that have, that have ascended, they're now making content like professionally and they are in conversation with each other and they might be reacting to each other's content. And of course there are different communities. There's like the car YouTuber community and then there's the game show there's the business community, and pretty quickly everyone sort of gets to know each other. But there's no DM feature. So even if I make a video—

Which is a good argument for it not being social media. Not being a social media.

Yeah, yeah. So like, you know, we at this point have done the Colin and Samir Show. We don't really have a way— like, we can go onto the Colin and Samir YouTube channel and leave them a comment, and they might see it if it's from the TVPN account. But we can't like just DM them and be surfaced to the top of the inbox. People have always wanted an inbox on YouTube.

Yeah, that's a huge feature request.

It's insane. It would be so cool to be able to see, okay, I got a DM from someone who has 100,000 followers and I can click on their profile and see, oh, they're like, you know, in the same niche. Like maybe we'd want to work together as opposed to everyone basically needs to flow over to Twitter or X and then DM there.

The other thing Google has in this kind of position is that so much of the watch time on YouTube is happening on television.

Oh yeah.

Something like 50%.

Yep.

Very different. And so they can make the argument that this is just modern television.

So let's go through Lanier's career because the Wall Street Journal has some interesting backstory here. He says Lanier has built a career and fortune representing plaintiffs against corporate giants. He won one of the first major wrongful death trials against pharma company Merck over claims that the prescription anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx caused heart problems. He also won a $4.69 billion verdict in 2020. In 2018 for women and their families who said asbestos-tainted talcum powder caused ovarian cancer. Over his career, it seems like he's done some very, very good work and has won some massive, massive settlements against big companies with broadly damaging product. A lot to admire about his career here. The social media trial drew more scrutiny than he predicted before he joined the plaintiffs' team last fall and was brought face to face with Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg. Suddenly, Lanier was —at the epicenter.

I believe that Zuck is actually mewing in this picture. If we can pull up this image.

It does appear to be something along those lines. Suddenly, Lanier was at the epicenter of a broad public—

You agree, Tyler, right?

You can tell his cortisol is not spiking here.

That's true. That definitely seems— he seems calm, collected. But this is not his first time putting on a suit. This is not the first time he's been in court. Suddenly, Lanier was at the epicenter of a broad public debate about social media and how people stay connected or are disconnected on platforms offering nearly endless content curated by algorithms. Quote, nothing compared to this, Lanier said, reflecting on the attention to the trial over oatmeal toast and a Coke Zero in downtown Los Angeles. Social media companies have largely been shielded from being held liable for third-party content on their platforms by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. At trial, Lanier had to focus on the platform's features, not the content, to make a case. And that's something that I want to talk about today, and I wrote about in the newsletter. The trial was the first among thousands of consolidated lawsuits filed by teenagers, school districts, and state attorneys against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. More are scheduled for this year. TikTok and Snap settled the case, settled the first case. He's known for showing jurors hand-drawn roadmaps and illustrations on an overhead projector to guide them through his legal reasoning and evidence, including signposts and human figures that could have been sketched by a child. To visualize microscopic asbestos fibers in talcum powder. He brought a bale of hay into a courtroom and dropped a needle into the blades. Into the blades? The blades of grass. Oh, the blades of hay. Got it. Okay. Wow. Very, very interesting. He likes props. That's it. He held up a jar of 415 M&Ms to show how a $1 billion fine would be a fraction of Alphabet's $415 billion in shareholder equity. He needs a bigger chart. He says he tries to avoid being flashy himself. He wears the same two unremarkable suits on rotation during a trial, and then I go burn them. What? He burns his suits after?

My work here is done, I guess.

He began gaining renown as a lawyer in an era when asbestos cases were swamping the US courts. He won a jury verdict of about $115 million in 1998 for 21 steelworkers who fell ill after using machinery that contained asbestos. Lanier and his wife Becky met in high school debate class. They have 5 children and 12 grandchildren. Wow, overnight success. They were known for years for their child-friendly Christmas parties at their estate of more than 35 acres near Houston, which has a model railroad that can seat 120 people. Okay, this guy's gotta win. I have completely changed my position here.

We need a mansion section. —an article.

I think we have a direct line to him, by the way. OK, we want him on the show. Well, maybe we should go do a show from the model train.

Yes. I'm so ready to be convinced of his position. I wrote a whole piece about how I disagree with the result, but he's winning me over.

Disagree with his entire argument, but you're agreeing with his approach to life.

Yes, 100%. 100%. The theme of his cases against major corporations is responsibility and integrity or lack of it. Tech billionaires don't need his help, Lanier said. But Kaylee would not have anybody else. Faith is much the same way. God's there to try to help people who need the help. Last week, Brandon Gorrell summarized the ruling this way. He said, in the case, the plaintiff's lawyer, Lark— Mark Lanier, argued that Meta and YouTube built digital casinos that use neurobiological techniques similar to those employed by slot machines. The jury found that specific features of Meta and YouTube are designed to be addictive. And I want you to really hone in on these features. So infinite scroll creates an environment where there are no natural stopping points. Algorithmic recommendation feeds— algorithmic recommendations feeds users highly engaging content. Autoplay removes users' agency in choosing whether to watch the next video. Notifications pull users back in by exploiting their need for validation. IG beauty filters contribute to the plaintiff's body dysmorphia, and features like the like button exploit users' biological need for social approval. Okay, so you got a bunch of features, you know this stuff, everyone uses social media, we all know about this stuff. The question is like, are the features addictive or is the content addictive? Because social media platforms are of course protected from the content that is posted on the platform.

And Lanier's entire argument is predicated on it being the features.

So, you know, we talked to Eric Goldman from Santa Clara University of Law and he was saying that like, yes, $6 million settlement right now, but this could be huge. The direct quote was whether we will even have social media in the future.

Like this could be existential. Yeah. And there's thousands of other cases like this kind of percolating, right? And so—

And they could turn into a class action. He's gotten $6 billion before. He could get $50 billion. I don't know. He could get a lot. Like $6 million is— he's not a $6 million guy. He's a $6 billion guy. And so this is the precursor and it's going further. And whether it's a ton of different cases or one big one, like it's a big problem for— the tech company. I thought it was an odd coincidence that we sort of had what I called the placebo-controlled trial for these exact features last week when Sora shut down. So OpenAI's nascent social network Sora shut down. The reaction of the news was funny to watch because a lot of people were like, yeah, I told you it was always bad. But when it launched, it was exactly the opposite. Everyone was like, it's too good. We won't be able to look away. It's simply too good. Rune summarized this pretty well, I think, yesterday. Sora was peak Moral panic. All of these breathless takes about making videos that are going to addict humanity and waste everyone's time. Meanwhile, we made some funny videos that were less funny as time went on, and AI slop is just one category among many on Instagram Reels. Don't worry so much about making videos that are going to blow up people's brains without worry, worry about making anything good at all. The best Soras were up there with the best Reels, and the humor relied significantly on the voice of the creator. I completely agree. The the funny Soras that I did.

Yeah, even the video we played last week of the cat on the porch. Yes. That wasn't one-shotted.

Yeah, the prompt was not, was not make something that will retain users.

And it wouldn't have been funny if the person hadn't been escalating like the scene every new prompt. Totally. And then stringing them together.

Sora absolutely used all of the social media best practices or addictive and harmful neurobiological techniques if you wanna use the course language. Sora app was basically the same as TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, Snap, in terms of UI and UX design. It had infinite scroll, it had algorithmic recommendations, it had notifications, it had a like button, and it didn't have IG beauty filters, but like the whole thing is a filter because I could go in there and say, make me look like a bodybuilder. And it did a good job and I looked great in the videos. It gave me crippling body dysmorphia. Obviously, I dream for the, for the day when I will look like my Sora avatar, my, my— what do they call it? Cameo, like Cameo? No, but they really did use all the normal tools and that was for familiarity, but also because they're moving quickly. And the key innovation was not the UI design or the fact that it's vertical or algorithmic feeds. Like we are in 2026, we're not in 2014 when we're launching Vine. So the key insight was purely AI-generated content and it didn't work. The features were not addictive because the people that downloaded Sora did not become addicted because the content was a little bit too sloppy.

Yeah, well, it was just one type of content. Exactly. And it turns out people like a broad selection and they like variability. Yes. They might wanna see, you know, a video of someone skiing. Yeah. And then some slop. Yeah. And then something their friend made. Yep. And then some health content. Yep. And it's really the collection of that. Yep. The other thing I think that seems very obvious is if it was the product itself and the features that were addicting, there would be so many social media apps that were, effectively thriving. There would be a bunch of Instagram.

And this is where I get to the cigarette comparison. So there's a bunch of comparisons to the cigarette industry. And I think it's really worth revisiting, like, what is addictive about cigarettes? Because there are some people that say, like, it's an oral fixation. Like, you just want to put, like, a stick in your mouth. So you should, like, switch to carrots.

Like, that is, like, maybe, like, 1%. Some could argue it's an addiction to looking cool. There you go.

But it is the nicotine. It is the nicotine, and that's why you do have a long tail of like 50 different cigarette brands and 1,000 different e-cigarette brands. And nicotine gum is addictive, nicotine patches are addictive, nicotine pouches are addictive because they all contain the nicotine. If the court is asking us to believe that the like button, the algorithmic feed, that is addictive, then we should see addiction-like results from any app that implements that because that is the case for all nicotine-containing products. They all addict people at, I mean, there are less addictive formats, but in general.

How many apps have you tried or test flights over the years that had any of these features that you used for 30 seconds? Exactly, exactly.

Because what actually keeps you coming back is the content, which is created by the users.

And so you want Lanier to go after every single person that has ever posted anything on Instagram and jail them, correct?

No. I think that some creators do create very compelling content. Some of that content is—

You wanna jail the best creators?

No, some of that content is amazing. Some of that content is great. Some of that content is bad. There's a very, very wide range. So yeah, but I mean, but it is true. Like, I think the court is correct and Lanier is correct that some people go on social media and make horrible content that depresses people that land on it. And it goes without saying that social media companies do have an enormous responsibility to manage recommendation feeds responsibly. Responsibly and route people in tough situations to helpful resources. So Google already does this very, very well. If you type in specific keywords that seem like you're in a mental health crisis, like it will not give you search results. It will give you a phone number for someone to call, and they know when to route the right people to that. And I do believe that all the tech platforms are thinking about this and implementing this. Maybe they need to be more aggressive. I think that the big thing that most people can agree on is parental controls here. And I think that that's like a much easier like middle ground here. And just in general, one other nice meet-in-the-middle option is potentially just, you know, getting tech companies to give users and parents in particular, but users broadly, more control over their experience. My mental health as a social media creator was at an all-time high before I understood the metrics. 'Cause I was just like, oh, 300 views? I'm famous. This is amazing. 300 people sat down and watched my 10-minute video essay about a dog. Dying VR technology or something like that. It's like, I've done it. But then eventually you, you get near like, wait, like the last video got 400,000 views. Why does this one have 375,000 views? I'm a failure. It is possible for me to create a platform that incentivizes addictive content, and that's like the retention curve. So retention editing makes it more addictive. You become addicted to the content, but it's because of the features.

Yeah, so I think that's like broadly a good argument, the steel man that you can you can make for like linear position. Yeah. And then, I mean, there's other stuff. I think like just the nicotine analogy, we were talking about this, like, okay, so you have nicotine like broadly and then below nicotine you have like smoking, which is like definitely very bad for you. And then you have like, you know, pouches or stuff like this, which is like probably less bad. Like it's just the nicotine, there's no tobacco. So like maybe this is like less bad. And so maybe the equivalent is like, you know, the cool snowboarding videos on Instagram are like the, you know, the cleaner like nicotine stuff and then the like— Still addictive, but not harmful. Yes. And then there's like—

Unless you're Jordi Hays and you're going to try and do a double cork 1260 and eat it. Get smoked. Get smoked into the ground. You would imagine even in the most strict ruling where every new social media platform needs to be approved, you could potentially use all of those addictive features as long as the content was not carcinogenic with inside that app. Yeah. And that would be like a new nicotine gum, basically. Yeah.

Like basically I'm saying like right now if you're under 18, you can still like there's like parental controls and you can't be under 13 or whatever, but like it's like poorly enforced. Like you can actually see a lot of the bad stuff. Yeah, under 18 on the screen or whatever.

Yeah. So I think I have a potential solution. Let's pull up this image of a cigarette package in Europe. Okay. So this is like typical cigarette packaging in Europe. John, you probably wouldn't know this because you're very American and you're very loyal and you, and you don't— you avoid overseas trips as much as possible. So on any given cigarette pack in Europe, you're going to see like a really terrible image. This woman apparently is coughing up blood. Yes. And so I think what, what a potential solution that Meta could do is as soon as you open Instagram, yeah, it makes an AI-generated image based on the last picture of you that you posted on social media and it just makes you look terrible. Oh, and it says like, warning, social media will destroy you. It could show you. And then you can scroll past it, potentially show you with tech neck.

Are you familiar with tech neck? Are you going there?

Yes, yes, yes. It's just a crazy image of you with tech neck, smoking your phone. And then so you can scroll past it. Yeah. Every time you open that app, it's a new image. It's a reminder. It's a new image of you looking the worst, wasting your life away.

Are the AI labs lobbying to get this removed? All right, we can put this away. Are the AI labs lobbying to get that removed? Because I think most of their timelines suggest that lung cancer will be cured by AI any day now. So potentially you could start smoking again. Has anyone come out as pro-smoking?

I don't think Anthropic's— They're anti-anthropic, you know, anti-sunscreen. The joke that they make with journalists, they kind of got caught on anti-sunscreen.

If AI is going to cure liver cancer, it's game on. It's game on. It's game on. You can drink as much as you want because that's because you get liver disease if you drink too much. If I'm going to be able to vibe code an mRNA vaccine to cure my liver cancer, I'm going to be boozing for sure. It's the only rational thing to do.

Yeah, well, this is also kind of like when sort of a rational— when companies like are saying like, oh yeah, work-life balance is super important. Yeah. So then their competitors will, you know. Yes. Yeah. It's like, yeah, people on Anthropic should tell people to OpenAI to start drinking a lot because AGI is going to cure liver disease.

Yes, yes, yes, yes. This is good. This is good.

Okay, let's revisit The Jetsons.

Okay. Revisit The Jetsons. I'm sure you've seen The Jetsons.

Where's my flying car and 3-hour workday? So I'm going to be learning about The Jetsons. John is going to be revisiting. I— the 1960s version of the future is way more fun than our reality. But when it comes to innovations, we're catching up. Hmm. Interesting. Let's see. Nicole says, I recently spent a weekend doing deep investigative research into future technologies. I binged The Jetsons in my sweatpants. For the uninitiated, the forgetful, this space-age family sitcom features George and Jane Jetson living the American dream in an apartment in the sky with their two children. Dog Astro, and robot maid Rosie. The show is set in 2062, a century ahead from its original 1962 air date. It's full of fantastical inventions such as flying cars, dinner-generating machines, and canine treadmills complete with fire hydrants. The upbeat vibe is markedly different from the apocalyptic, at times murderous sci-fi of today. The 1960s were full of optimism about what the 21st century would bring, and some of it actually has come true. While we've still got a few decades before the Jetson family is meant to arrive, I dug into some of the show's technological hallmarks and determine how close we already are. Video calling, she says. Absolutely. In lieu of a home phone, the Jetsons had a video phone. I think those creators couldn't fathom mobile devices, but they were spot on about video calling.

Now, now, to be clear, we are still working on with one of our business associates like a video call that doesn't stop halfway through. Yeah. And just cancel.

But so the Jetsons didn't predict the free tier.

Yeah, the free tier of Zoom was not considered in The Jetsons where you're talking to someone. They couldn't fathom it. You're clearly gonna go long on the meeting and Zoom's just like, goodbye. It's over. It's over. It kicks everyone out with no notice. Is that a new thing?

I feel like it used to do a countdown.

I think it did a countdown too, but now it's just like, get out of here.

Now they're just like, we wanna embarrass the host. Yeah. So in The Jetsons, they could even create deepfakes to stand in for them on camera. Whoa. That's cool. That's cool. I didn't realize that.

FaceTime's gotta get on that. This is good. Read this next line. When George secretly attended a robot football game, his simulacrum told Jane he had to work late. He's like using a deepfake to lie to his wife. This is so '60s. Do not do this. Do not do this. This is dystopian. Flying cars.

It's not all optimism. Flying cars and travel tubes, sort of. There isn't much walking in Orbit City. A conveyor belt brings George from bed to the bathroom. To get to and from his classroom, Elroy jets through a series of air tubes. Called the School Homing Network. When the wrong child shows up at the Jetsons' home, Jensen sends— Jane sends him back with the push of a button.

Push-button jobs, almost. George works as a digital index operator at Spacely Space Sprockets for approximately 3 hours a day, 3 days a week. As a button pusher, he makes enough to support a family of 4, even though majority of his day is spent with his feet up on his desk.

Okay, they basically nailed this. There's some people out there that are basically button pushers right now. Yeah, vibe coding. Yeah, TBD on, on the revenue side.

Working 3 hours a day, 3 days a week, you know, we work 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, and maybe the future is 3, just Monday, Wednesday, Friday streams. We can live the Jetsons future.

That'd be devastating for us.

Yeah, until then we'll be the working—

space colonization. Nope.

Yeah, they live above Earth. With houses built on tall stilts. I like that. 36 years and counting. We may not be living as exceptional a future as the Jetsons, but we've still got 3.5 decades to catch up. By then, I will be twice as old as I am now. I've already witnessed the dawn of high-speed internet, the iPhone, and generative AI. How many tech revolutions will we experience in another 36 years? By the time we hit the show's 2062 deadline, maybe we will finally live in space or make our current planet more habitable. And make a comfortable living on a 9-hour work week. Tyler, what do you think? Will we get space colonization? How do you define space colonization? Living not on the Earth above the Kármán line for like, that's your primary residence, like more than half the year.

How many people do it?

Anyone with like, if you can afford like an apartment for a few thousand dollars or like a house that's above of $500,000 in America, you can choose to live in space.

It probably depends on like the industry that like is chiefly benefited from people living there.

Andrew Reid says, "The faster technology progresses, the harder it gets to print something in the office." We have experienced this. We have experienced this. It's very true. The brothers. Aaron from Box says, "Reid's Law. I know you may have wanted a better law, but I don't make the rules." The year is 2027.

Gary Tan has just crossed 1 billion lines of code per day. Water to 3-year-old Californian towns were diverted in order to cool his locally ran LLMs. Riots erupt and protesters demand answers to one single question: What is he building? People are joking about this because what was the latest stat? It was something like 80—

78,000 lines of code per day on— per day on Gary's list. On Gary's list, which is his his, his blogs. It's a blog.

Sam says, I remember when this was announced but didn't fully appreciate the size. That's a hell of a cluster. The Department of Energy will basically be a frontier AI company. NVIDIA is collaborating with Oracle and the Department of Energy to build the U.S. Department of Energy's largest AI supercomputer for scientific discovery. The Solstice system will feature record-breaking 100,000 Blackwells and support the DOE's mission of developing AI capabilities to drive technological leadership across U.S. security, science, and energy applications. Another system, Equinox, will include 10,000 NVIDIA Blackwell GPUs expected to be available in 2026. Both systems will be located at Argonne and will be interconnected by NVIDIA networking and deliver a combined 2,200 exaflops of AI performance.

We've talked about nationalization before. We haven't talked about privatization. We could potentially spin this out, take it public. There's an option here.

So I was interested in this. I look— this is going to be like somewhere around like a quarter of a gigawatt equivalent of 100,000 Blackwells.

Half a Meta campus, I think. In fundraising news, Physical Intelligence is in talks to raise $1 billion at $11 billion valuation.

I need to know, why is Jeff Bezos here besides the fact that he looks fantastic in the tux?

He might put in some money. Oh no, no. The company has previously raised more than $1 billion in capital from investors, including Jeff Bezos and Alphabet's independent growth fund, CapitalG. So you could have put Peter Thiel, because Founders Fund's in, you could have put Lightspeed, is that Danny Ryan?

You could have put Carroll or Locky. Yeah. Or any of the active team.

But basically, Fuxedo seems to get the viral attention. You know, they're not a noisy firm. They're not a noisy company that's like posting vibe reels and going and picking fights all the time. So there isn't that much coverage of physical intelligence. But if you just look at the traction, look at the open source contributions, the data, the fundraising, like clearly something is happening there. And so I think it's worth digging in and paying attention to.

Last night, Bill Ackman hit the timeline. Whoa, I didn't know that. He said some of the highest quality businesses in the world are trading at extremely cheap prices. Ignore the mainstream media. One of the most one-sided wars in history that will end well for the US and the world. And we have Potential for a large piece dividend, one of the best times in a long time to buy quality. Ignore the bears. And he says, and Fannie Mae and Freddie are stupidly cheap. Asymmetry at its best. They could be a 10x and it could happen soon. And of course, GeoTickets comes in and says, X.com, the market manipulation app, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are up 42% and 37% as of this morning. I think, I think they've actually dipped back down a little bit. But Justin says, posting your opinion on a public website is not market manipulation.

JT says, don't ruin the Somebody asked Grok, like, hey, break it down, like, what is actually going on here with Fannie and Freddie? They generate $25 billion in stable annual net income from guaranteed fees, low credit losses outside crises. They're still in 2008 conservatorship, and the stock trades for a total market cap of $10 billion. So there's a world where you're sort of buying maybe— I don't know exactly how aggregated this is, but maybe it's like $25 billion of cash flow at some point. For $10 billion, that feels like a very good deal. Get paid back in 4 months, 5 months. But of course, there are a whole bunch of other political issues.

And of course, he does own— Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in his Pershing Square portfolio. Again, not illegal to share your opinion.

Yeah. Artemis II is launching, and Kalsi has it at 64% chance before April 2nd of this year. We're going to the moon. 4 people are going to the moon. Everyday NASA astronaut says, I'm honestly shocked at how the general public has no idea Artemis II is taking humans out to the moon and will be the furthest humans have ever flown. Every non-space nerd I've talked to has no idea. We got to get people stoked. This is what I'm going to be writing about tomorrow. NASA is set to launch 4 astronauts around the moon, the deepest human spaceflight since the final Apollo lunar landing in 1972. It's been an honor.

It's been an honor. It's been an honor to be here. It was a rough couple days.

I'm glad.

It's going to be a great week. Have a wonderful evening.

We will see you tomorrow. Goodbye. Throwing smoke. Throwing smoke.