New Apple Products, Anthropic's Strategy, Why AI Costs Don’t Hurt Apple | Dean Ball, Scott Kupor & Jared Isaacman, Adam Bry, Matteo Franceschetti, Dillon Rolnick

You're watching TVPN. Today's Wednesday, March 4th, 2026.

New haircut.

New haircut alert. We are live from the TVPN Ultra Dome, the temple of technology, the fortress of finance, the capital of capital. Let me tell you about ramp.com. Time is money. Save both. Easy to use corporate cards, bill pay, accounting, and a whole lot more all in one place. We have a little bit of a shorter show. Let's pull up the Linear lineup. Linear, of course, is the system for modern software development. 70% of enterprise workspaces on linear are using agents. We have Dean Ball coming on to give the other side of the Ball versus Thompson argument about Anthropic. Then we have Scott Kapoor and Jared Isaacman coming on to talk about space. We're going to the moon and they're gonna take us there. And then we have Adam Bry from Skydio, who I actually worked with through Andreessen Horowitz maybe 10 years ago. And then Matteo, CEO of Eight Sleep, has some exciting news. And Dylan's coming on to break down the latest AI agent, Hermes Agent. Well, Anyway, there was some big news this week. Of course, everyone knew that Apple was launching new products, but there were some surprises and there's some cool stuff starting with the MacBook Neo. My, the more downstream take is like, how is Apple affected by the AI boom? But let's start with the actual products because this thing in the video, it looks so small. It looks like an 8-inch laptop. I guess this is, So this is the MacBook Neo, sort of designed to compete with the Chromebook. It comes in at $599.

Well, not even just the Chromebook, just all PCs.

Yeah, but I mean, you're not going to get this for, like, if you're in a professional workplace, go to a desktop with multiple monitors, plug in, you're doing like advanced work. Like, this is for students. This is for the low end. Or just a personal computer.

Yeah, yeah, for normal people. Have an iPhone, but don't have a Mac because of cost. And now they can have an integrated suite.

Yeah, I mean, it's a crazy product. I love the launch video too. It's very weird when they start, because it's just this blank block, and then they're adding features to it with CGI. It does a really good job. It's sort of anticlimactic, because every feature they add is just what you'd expect. I was kind of like, oh, is this going to be a touchscreen? And then it's like, oh no, it's just a normal screen. And it's like, oh, guess what? It has a keyboard. Keyboard, boom, mic drop. Oh, it has 2 USB-C ports. It is kind of cool that they put the headphone jack a little bit further down. I thought that was cool. And then they're like, check it out, you're never gonna guess this, a camera. We put it on the computer.

They're like, hey, we heard you liked having an iPad that you could attach a keyboard to. So we basically took an iPad and put a keyboard.

But it's very cool how they like sort of expand the product, like show you, okay, there's the speaker, it's pretty big. It goes on the side, there's 2 of them. Shows you, but this does not look like a 13-inch computer to me. This looks like an 8-inch computer to me. This looks like a small iPad and 13 inches is a very normal size.

Maybe the model's just like Shaq or someone.

Yeah, yeah, no, I think they actually use someone with the big hands to make it like maybe look smaller or something, but 13-inch display, 16-hour battery life. The price is the really crazy thing. So $599 for students, it's $100 cheaper. So $499, that is one of the cheapest Apple products they've ever made. I'm pretty sure the headphones cost more, the Apple Pro, the Apple AirPods. AirPods Max cost like $500. Remarkably cheap, A18 Pro chip, 256 gigs or 512 of storage, 4 colors. They got it in Ramp Yellow. They call it citrus, but I think everyone's gonna be—

And it now costs the same amount as the entry-level iPhone? Yeah. 17E?

Yeah. And it has Wi-Fi 6E, Bluetooth 6 connectivity, 8 gigs of RAM, 1080p front-facing camera. Like people are sort of like, ah, it's underpowered, but look at the price. This is crazy. The last time, Apple had a product that was anywhere near this cheap was, wow, where was it? Let's see, I wrote about this. So in 2014, so 12 years ago, long time ago, they sold the MacBook Air for $899. And now they have this down at $499 or $599, which is remarkable. Really, really cheap. Cheap for 2026, cheap for an Apple product. Even cheap when compared to other laptops. So this is sort of like their, their, their escape hatch, their pressure release valve. So they can actually increase the price on the other products more because if you're price sensitive, well, they have a product for you. And there was something similar that happened with the new suite of iPhones where the iPhone Pro Max was getting so big and the camera notch was so in your face and the phone was bigger and heavier and the battery life was great. It was very powerful. And a lot of people want that. But there were also a lot of people who were complaining, I just want a thinner phone. Well, then you have the iPhone Air and there's going to be crazy trade-offs. You only get, I think, one camera. The battery life's not nearly as good.

Lags.

It lags. But for some people, if they're going to be complaining about all the features of the Pro Max, it's like, well, we got the Air for you. Stop complaining. And I think that's a lot of the strategy there. So the other products they launched, MacBook Air with, with an M5 chip. MacBook Pro with the M5 Pro and M5 Max chip. Did you wind up going, how much memory did you wind up going with?

48.

48, is that enough?

I feel a little soft.

Is that enough to pull up tweets and react to them on a livestream? Time will tell. Apparently you actually have been maxing out something like 32 gigs of RAM, which took me by surprise. I have not had, I've not been memory constrained, but I do, I do actually love the idea of getting the top-end memory, which is the thing that constrains you on running LLMs locally. Is that correct, Tyler?

Yeah, I mean, you can always like, if you have a really good model, you can like get around the memory thing, but it kind of gets like super slow 'cause you're like loading it in and out.

Oh, okay, you're loading it in and out for like every token that you're generating.

Yeah, you need a lot of memory to run a model.

But so if I go with the 128 gig, the top-of-the-line chip, I should be able to inference a pretty smart model locally pretty reliably.

I mean, it's also like you can always just quantize the models down. And so you can actually run really frontier open-source models on pretty normal hardware now.

I'm just purely thinking for doomsday prepping, the idea of you have your library in case you're bored during the apocalypse. You have your DVD collection. You can watch all the movies from start. That's the big one for you because you're you're going to be able to watch all of American cinema from the beginning.

I still don't think I'd actually watch.

You wouldn't do that? What would you be doing? Assuming that the internet's down in this apocalyptic scenario, you can't scroll.

Plenty of other things to do.

What would you do?

Take a walk on the beach.

What if you can't go outside because there's nuclear fallout everywhere? You're stuck in your bunker. What are you doing? Whittling? Would you get into whittling?

I actually used to love whittling as a kid. Called it.

Called it. He's not going to be watching movies. He's going to be whittling. I will be whittling while I watch movies, while I inference a local model that I can just ask questions to and get all sorts of history. And there might be a few hallucinations because it's not querying the internet because, of course, in this hypothetical scenario, the internet is gone. But I would still have access to all the pre-trained information and basically the world's best encyclopedia, which would be fun. What else did they launch? In a world where computers keep going up in price, it's kind of wild to see Apple drop a $599 laptop, says Theo. A phone-priced Mac. Agree more. Fry says, oh man, they're going to sell 5 billion of these things. Yeah, this feels like more of a no-brainer for kids than an iPad for some reason. I don't know if I'm just old school. And I'm like, if it has a keyboard, it's more—

iPads with kids just have really bad aesthetics.

It does.

Kids with an iPad just zoning out, right?

You get them a keyboard, they're locked in.

But you get them there—

I think there's something here.

And you're like, are they day trading?

Yeah, they're doing something for sure. It might be underpowered, but it'll get the job done. And I think there's something about typing on a keyboard that does lend itself to more creation and less consumption. Like the iPad is a media consumption device. That's where most people use it for. Throw on Netflix, play a game, do something. There aren't that many people that are power users, but as soon as you get the keyboard, you're ready to type, you're ready to work. Let me tell you about Railway is the all-in-one intelligent cloud provider. Use your favorite agent to deploy web apps, servers, databases, and more while Railway automatically takes care of scaling, monitoring, and security. And let me also tell you about Okta. Okta helps you assign every AI agent a trusted identity so you get the power of AI without the risk. Secure every agent, secure any agent. So hilarious chart from Andreessen Horowitz. Apple on CapEx? Nah, we're good. They looked at the standardized quarterly capital expenditure for Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, and Apple. And all of the 4 companies that are working on AI, Amazon obviously through AWS and Anthropic, Microsoft through OpenAI, Alphabet through Gemini, and Meta through MSL, they are all absolutely off to the races going to the moon on CapEx. And Apple is down 19% since, 2015 on this standardized metric that A16z put together. Very, very funny. And it's just interesting that Apple has been so unaffected by AI costs, not just on the CapEx side, which is where every hyperscaler sort of had to say, yep, you know what, our business is fundamentally different now. We are not the high-margin cash flow generating business. We're going to draw down on that cash. We might be taking on some debt. Like, This is a big, big different financial model. It's a very different financial model from years past. And buckle up, you're coming with us, shareholders. And the stocks have done well because a lot of shareholders have believed in the goal, believed in the value of AI, believed in the value of building compute infrastructure broadly. And they've been rewarded for it in most cases. But Apple's just sort of sat that out and said, hey, we're not, we're not gonna train a foundation model. We're not going to build a whole bunch of compute infrastructure.

We're going to serve Gemini.

We're going to serve Gemini and we'll pay them, what, $1 billion a year or something like that?

Yeah.

It's like, yeah, I mean, this, this year will be really interesting. It'll be fascinating to see what the new Siri actually looks like, what it can really do. We'll start to see that, I think, in Q2. Yes. And then separately, we're expecting new devices from OpenAI, right? Oh, yeah. Teasing the Puck, whatever you want to call it. Yeah. It'll be interesting to see if they can kind of break the AI hardware curse that I feel like is—

Well, I wanted to think about that because I wonder if the story's over for some of those cursed bad launches product. We saw Friend apparently has found a little niche, very controversial, but Humane has sold to HP. It seems like they're not working on that product anymore, the pin, the AI pin, but The Rabbit R1, I think his name's Jesse, that product, there's something there where with enough iterations, I feel like that might sell well. I was playing with the Board the other day. That hardware, it's like a huge screen, touchscreen that you can play games on. There's still these niche applications that I think you could potentially, if you have a hardware team, you have the ability to sell something. It wasn't polished, the AI wasn't good enough. Well, the AI got better, you still have the supply chain. Maybe there's a way to cut through., but it probably needs to be a little bit more niche than like everyone's going to have one. Tyler, what do you think about hardware in the age of AI?

I mean, I think the Mac Mini is like a good example of like AI hardware, right?

Yeah. No, that's a great example. Yeah. I wonder what, like how exposed the Gemini APIs will be in iOS because if you fully expose like GeminiKit, like, you know, in iOS, just like you can call like a weather API or a maps API, like Uber exists because because there was like a GPS API that you could just call within an iOS application with a couple lines of code and you didn't have to like figure out where the user was because the iPhone just told you that as long as you clicked like, yeah, share my location with Uber. If you now get an app that has not just Apple's local LLMs that are sort of mediocre, but it can go and call Gemini and do a whole bunch of crazy stuff. You start running into like, will someone build an OpenClaw app or something? Like how much of Apple's AI strategy will wind up being vended into the third-party ecosystem, which has served them so well for so long. They've sort of turned their back on it. They locked down Apple Vision Pro a little bit more. There was way less uptake there. And there's a ton of risk because if I develop like a free iOS app that then incurs like a ton of Gemini tokens and ton of charges, how do those get passed through? Is Apple just biting the bullet on it? But there's something interesting there where we're turning app developers loose to build software that takes advantage not just of local LLM capabilities, but Gemini under the hood and sort of wrap it up in a neat bow that is, you know, available to the consumer. Could be very cool. Anyway, the big question that I had, and I will get into the essay, was— so Apple's unaffected by CapEx costs, but they've also, with this release, been unaffected by memory costs and the RAMmageddon. So I will take you through how I dug into the question of memory pricing at Apple. But first, I will tell you about label Labelbox, RL environments, voice, robotics, evals, and expert human data. Labelbox is the data factory behind the world's leading AI teams. And I will also tell you about Console. Console builds AI agents that automate 70% of IT, HR, and finance support, giving employees instant resolution for access requests and password resets. That's a good sound effect. I like that one. I have one too.

Surprise.

I can't believe you haven't used that yet.

I know, no, no. Because I was so burned by the last time I got access to the soundboard and I went too crazy. So there was one show where me and Jordy both had full soundboard access, all of the same sound cues.

One single show.

And it was truly— A disaster. What's the metaphor from Greek mythology? It was Pandora's box for me. Like, once I opened it, I could not resist. And I became addicted. And I was pushing the thing. It is very addicting. And it just didn't work. So we were like, no, let's have Jordy play the soundboard. I'll do other stuff.

The issue for me as a soundboard artist is when I'm not doing the show, when I'm hanging out on the weekend, I'm just thinking— if somebody says something, like we're at dinner, I'm thinking about the sound effect.

Yeah. I was hanging out with you, and you said something crazy. And I wanted to just be like— And so I opened up my phone, I went to YouTube, and I pulled up that sound and played it. But then I had to turn on my volume, and it took me way too long, and the joke had passed. But we have a solution. Tyler Cosgrove over there has been working on a soundboard app that can go on your phone, and you can have— we should do a widget too so that it's just there on the home screen. Boop, your favorite soundboard cue. So expect that soon.

Anyway.

Let me tell you about app loving, profitable advertising made easy with Axon.ai. Get access to over 1 billion daily active users and grow your business today. So the question, the question, like, like I get, I get the strategy of Apple saying, look, we're good with Google handling the AI inference stuff. They have GCP, they have the TPU, they got Demis who's got a book written about him by Sebastian Malaby. He like, like DeepMind is great. We're working with them. So CapEx unaffected, I understand that. How are they not affected by memory prices? RAMageddon has come for us all. And Ben Thompson of Stratechery and John Gruber of Daring Fireball actually had a bet about this. And I hope I didn't misspell John Gruber's name. They had a bet about this. They said whoever wins this bet gets a steak dinner. A steak dinner was at stake and Ben Thompson lost. Well, Gruber won because Jon Gruber said Apple always overcharges for RAM. Getting a— if you went to build a computer or a phone or laptop or iPad equivalent, you just went to retail, getting an extra 128 gigs of memory or a slight memory upgrade might cost you $30. In the Apple ecosystem, that's like $200. So Apple has built in this this pricing buffer for a very, very long time. And that buffer really saved them this year. But there's, there's a lot more to it. So many companies are dealing with RAMageddon this year. And some stats that are interesting: DRAM prices rose 172% throughout 2025. DDR5 spot prices have quadrupled since September of 2025. TrendForce expects PC DRAM to roughly double in price just in Q1 of 2026. With LPDDR pricing seeing the steepest increases in history. So every wafer that's allocated to an HBM stack, a high bandwidth memory stack for an NVIDIA GPU, is literally a wafer denied to the LPDDR5X module of a mid-range smartphone or consumer laptop SSD. So they are truly commodities. There's only so many of them and they can only go to one place or the other. Apparently OpenAI's Stargate initiative alone could consume up to 40% of global DRAM output as it stands today. And this is the problem because there's only 3 major companies in the memory category. It's Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron. Together, they control 95% of the global DRAM production.

Remember, Micron has been trying to build a new facility in New York.

Yes.

And 6 people basically blocked it.

Oh, we talked about that, but I—

And the rumor is that it's like foreign funding. Oh, interesting. Actually trying to hold Micron up.

But yeah, yeah. I mean, Micron has been very— they've been a huge beneficiary of AI margins and higher prices and so much so that they've actually reallocated all of their capacity to AI and they pulled out of their consumer brand, which is called Crucial. So if you ever tried to build a gaming PC, you probably found Crucial Ballistics, which was like the very aggressively X Games branded, like PC Gamer DDR memory, which was, you know, like the Monster Energy of RAM. Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. No, it really is like the, the branding on Crucial Ballistics is like insane. Anyway, gamers will be rising up soon with Monster Energies in hand to, to take the the RAM by force if they need to. I already see memes about this all the time. I see these like the worst AI slop video you've ever seen, just absolute junk. And then the caption will be like, so this is why I can't afford RAM, you know, or this is why RAM is $800 a stick or whatever. And then on the flip side, people will say, you know, occasionally there'll be a good AI slop video and people will be like, okay, it's worth paying $800 for RAM because this is so good, right?

It goes both ways.

It goes both ways. Clearly people are feeling the pinch, but Apple fans will be sitting out the fight thanks to a few key moves from Apple that help them avoid disaster this year. So one, Apple has long-term supply agreements that allow them to secure memory 12 to 24 months in advance. They also benefit from vertical integration and custom silicon. So instead of buying that consumer-grade commodity DRAM modules that you see go into either gaming PCs or Nvidia GPUs, for example, they negotiate multi-year contracts directly with Samsung and SK Hynix for custom LPDDR packages that meet Apple's exact specifications. And so I—

yeah, so this is like RAM's always been cyclical. Yep. And so it makes a lot of sense for Apple to say basically like lock up pricing. Samsung's locking up the demand. They— I don't even think Samsung would have predicted this level of demand even 3, 4 years ago. Otherwise they may not have priced it in the way that they did. Of course. The other thing that maybe you get to is—

And seems like still making their default margin. They're just like, the opportunity cost is so high, we could reallocate.

The other thing is, they probably have so much margin in the upsell that they could have some margin compression and still be—

So Apple at various times has had over $100 billion in cash. They currently have over $66 billion in cash. Like, they can take the hit there. They can also just take a hit to their margins.

Every AI lab looking at that cash being like, Tim, I could really put that to use right now.

Yeah, they're the only hyperscaler that hasn't really shelled out to the tune of $10, $20, $30 billion into one of the frontier labs. Maybe that changes. I don't know. Somebody was throwing out like Apple should buy Anthropic or Amazon should buy Anthropic. But I think the price is too high at this point. It's just getting away. But so I'm not 100% sure about how the manufacturing supply chain for memory works, but I believe that because Apple's specific requirements, it's harder for Samsung to just instantly reallocate product that's been already manufactured in a way where Crucial, Ballistix, if it's going into gaming PC, it's easier to reallocate those wafers. So even if they didn't have those contracts, I think, I think the supply chain is a little bit stickier with Apple because they're vertically integrated. And then, yeah, of course they have the money to overpay. We talked about how the MacBook Neo is this pressure release valve. So even if the memory does increase, they have this, they have the cash buffer. They also have the— they're charging $200 for something that costs $30. If it goes to $60, they can just take a hit on margins, buffer. Then they have the contract buffer. Then they also have this neo where if the MacBook Pro goes up in price, the MacBook Pro buyer is probably less price sensitive. They're like, yeah, you know, this year it was $4,000 instead of $3,000. I'm buying it for business purposes. It's not that big of a squeeze. And then the price-sensitive buyer says, yeah, you know what, I'm not going to go for the $2,000 laptop. I'm going to go for the $600 laptop this year. And they're still in the Apple ecosystem. But my takeaway is like, this is an incredible testament to the operational prowess of Apple to pull this off at this scale. The Sony PlayStation 6 is allegedly going to be delayed until 2028 or 2029 because of rising memory costs. They're going to wait it out because there are 3 players. It's not just TSMC in this case. It does feel like there'll be more pricing competition and, and there's more of a race to build capacity. Whereas at TSMC, if they don't build the next fab, they can just continually raise prices and increase margins once the next contracts go up for renewal. Whereas if Samsung has a bunch of capacity and Micron doesn't, Samsung wins. And so there's more of this game theoretic, like they got to, they have to build. And so I think a lot of people, and Tyler was talking about this with me earlier, We all expect this memory shortage to be a few years, not more, not like 5 or 10 years. So if you push out the Sony PS6 to—

You're not bullish, Tyler?

He's bullish.

No, I'm very bullish. But I think, yeah, because there's more players, like I think the shortage will be—

Just say you're not AGI-pilled.

What do you mean? I mean, there is a question about like if you truly go exponential forever and it's just like, okay, yeah, there's like trillions and trillions of dollars of data centers being built. It's like, can even Samsung, Micron, SK Hynix keep up forever?

Yeah.

No, so we might be living in a permanently higher price just because it's a more valuable product. We get more economic value.

Yeah, this time might be different.

Might be different. Also, the Nintendo Switch 2 might go up in price next year. It's really bad for gamers. Gaming graphics cards are going up in price. NVIDIA is pulling out of gaming graphics cards or they're skipping a year. So it's mayhem for gamers. But long term, the competition between the memory manufacturers should stabilize prices. And— but, you know, just watching all the big companies that are not Apple get caught flat-footed is just crazy to watch because it's not like— it's not like the folks at Nintendo or the folks at Sony are like, oh yeah, first time manufacturing something. Like, if you told me that, like, the team behind the Rabbit R1 was, like, suffering from higher memory costs, I'd be like, yeah, Like it's a new company, new product. They haven't— like Sony has been making PlayStations for decades and they still got caught flat-footed on this. And a lot of that is a testament to the brand power that Apple has, the network effects, the, the scale they built, that they're in this position and still not getting squeezed even when other hyperscalers are getting squeezed on all sorts of stuff.

Tim Cook, still underrated.

He cooked. He has cooked. And, and yeah, the operational side of Apple is always It's just habitually underrated, even in the face of slight misses on features and products and marketing and, oh, this ad didn't land. Well, the business is still thriving and dealing with just crisis after crisis. The tariff should have been a major crisis. They got through it. This memory— RAMageddon should have been a crisis. They got through it. It's all been very, very good news for Apple. Let me tell you about ElevenLabs. Build intelligent real-time conversational agents. Reimagine human technology interaction with ElevenLabs and get that cha-ching ready because I'm going to tell you about Phantom Cash. Fund your wallet without exchanges or middlemen and spend with the Phantom card. Apple is exercising the Coase conjecture. They're waiting for open-source models to get better, applying pressure to Frontier Lab pricing, e.g., rejecting Anthropic overtures. Anthropic wanted more money. From Apple. They went with Google and Gemini. This is from Soren Larsen, who is an economist who I really respect. It may rather be that impatient buyers have adverse selection revealing actually poor business positioning. So he's identifying Apple's leverage in the system. They're this consumer aggregator, and they've been— They've been doing very well. Kyle Harrison says that, quote, we ran the math. OpenAI is buying 3 to 4 times more memory than it could possibly need in the short term. The most charitable explanation is aggressive forward positioning. The less charitable one is that they're cornering the supply to kill on-device AI before it starts. Well, if the on-device AI happens on Apple products, that doesn't seem like that real of a scenario, but it is, it is an interesting thesis. I think that across the frontier labs, everyone is just very AGI-pilled. They're seeing the increase in capabilities, but also these sort of like stacked exponentials. Ben Thompson was explaining this today, that when you went from LLMs to reasoning, the number of tokens, the number of compute required just to get a single answer when like, you know, 10x all of a sudden. And then we saw the same thing with coding agents where these long-running tasks are sort of like squaring the amount of compute. And so you just keep stacking these things on and you just get more and more compute demand, but you get more economic output. So it winds up being all worth it. When will Apple release the iPhone.

The only other thing on the OpenAI memory side is they plan to sell a lot of consumer devices themselves.

Oh, so they might be buying it for that, right?

Yeah, so we don't really know, but yeah, I think that obviously OpenAI has kind of rolled back some of like that $1.2 trillion number, but seeing the growth in demand just in this first couple months of the year starts to look like, hey, maybe he wasn't so crazy after all.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, totally. Like the models are justifying the compute. And I think that we talked about this yesterday a little bit with the orchestrators, just this idea that where will the next 10x come from? Well, it's probably from just running 10 instances of Cloud Code or Codex and and just firing off 10 times as much inference. And people are ready to do that. You see it all the time on Twitter, people talking about how much inference they're doing. When will Apple release the iPhone 18? Kalsi has before October at 35%, before 2027 at 34%. What is the chance that they don't release it this year? This year, that would be probably zero. And I think it is zero. So stay tuned. I'm sure Mark Gurman will have good coverage on the next iPhone.

Nick, let's get the Gurmanator back on.

Yeah. Well, I wanted to invite Jon Gruber to talk about these, but Mark Gurman, of course, is welcome at any time. But we have yet to talk to Jon Gruber, and he has been covering Apple fantastically through throughout his entire career. So he would be an interesting gentleman to talk to.

TSMC.

Let me tell you about Gusto first. Gusto is the unified platform for payroll benefits and HR built to evolve with modern small and medium-sized businesses. And let me tell you about Restream. One live stream, 30+ destinations. If you want to multistream, go to restream.com.

So TSMC submitted a new semiconductor fab construction plan for the Southern Taiwan Science Park last week. The site is located on Tainan's Anding District adjacent to the F18 fab and covers 15.46 hectares.

They're doing more 2-nanometer production, the leading edge, with 8 hectares allocated for the production area and 1 hectare for administrative facilities. The project is expected for completion and production start in 2024. 2028, says Semi Analysis. So we'll see what happens in the actual CapEx guide from TSMC. Ben Thompson has been very disappointed with where TSMC has been guiding on CapEx, but maybe this is a shift. I wonder how much faster it will be to build another TSMC fab over there. If they ramp production of this new facility before Arizona, if they eclipse and there's a flippening and this gets to scale before Arizona, it will reveal some very serious problems with America's building and permitting system, I would imagine, or maybe talent pool. I would certainly hope that Taiwan, I mean, this is their crown jewel. They should get this up and running fairly quickly without many delays since they've done it before and they are heavily invested in TSMC, of course.

More importantly, Wendy's US president posts new video amid burger battle with McDonald's and Burger King.

Let's see, let's watch, let's rate it. Does he, uh, does he put—

I like the way that he's holding it, you know.

Okay, seems normal. Yeah, wonderful.

Kind of—

that's a burger. This is good.

I like talking, talking about food in his mouth. Okay, yeah, going, going, going back for a second.

You got to top it off with fries.

He's saying burger. He's not saying product.

Product.

There we go. Yeah. No hesitation.

No hesitation.

Wait, wait.

What did he dip in the Frosty? Was that bait? What does he do at the end there? He dips a French fry in the Frosty. Whoa.

Okay. Okay. Doesn't call it a product. No hesitation. Talking with the food in his mouth.

Yeah. Yeah. That's bold.

That's bold. I'm giving this an 8 out of 10.

If you scroll down, I like Colonel Sanders after seeing this, just knowing—

also, also the way he kind of puts the fry in and quickly, you know, kind of pulls, pulls the hand back. Yeah, I got style points, dude.

Here's a good job. If you're looking for a gig that will bring home the bacon, apply for the job of CEO at McDonald's. Apparently the guy makes $18 million a year.

Wait, do they have an open job application?

No, but after this, it's entirely possible that if you put on a masterful performance chomping down, you could make a run. I don't know. It is funny that there's just one after another of CEOs. This is probably good for all of them. I don't know. This is fun. People are, "I want no jump cuts. Somebody should be seen swallowing the food." Oh. Okay, people are analyzing.

That's somewhat, somewhat fair.

Analyzing the details. Let me tell you about Gemini 3.1 Pro. Gemini 3.1 Pro is here with a more capable baseline. It's great for super complex tasks like visualizing difficult concepts, synthesizing data into a single view, or bringing creative projects to life.

Uh, Berber Jin came in and shared Altman defended OpenAI's Defense Department contract in an all-hands Yesterday, calling the backlash, quote, "Really painful. This was an example of a complex, but the right decision with extremely difficult brand consequences and very negative PR for us in the short term," he told staff. Yeah, I still stand by that given the events that have transpired in the world since last week, like being there to like meet meet the government feels like being on the right path.

It was just, yeah, it was just odd that the, that like Google's strategy was to not say anything. Do nothing, win, basically, I would think. Or do nothing, don't go up or down. Like, Gemini just—

But I don't think Gemini is involved in this contract. It's Grok. It's Grok. Grok was the other one that came in with the same terms.

So Gemini doesn't have any relation with the Department of War? I think they do. I thought that there was a—

I might be— they might. I just don't think they were involved in this contract negotiation.

Because I've seen Palantir show that they have 3 or 4 models that they sort of mix together to get responses. I don't know. OpenAI announced its Defense Department deal on Friday, hours after the Defense Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated rival Anthropic a supply chain risk. There's still a question as to whether or not that's going to go through. So Calshe has it at a 42.8% chance and it hasn't really moved. It's unclear if that's just like staying in tweet land and is like bluster or will there be something there or will, will there? I mean, I have to imagine that at this point both the Department of War and Anthropic are talking to each other. Do you have more information?

Yeah, Gemini does have deals with the DOD.

Yeah.

So there was the $200 million one that was in July. Yeah, that was Anthropic was also in that one.

Yeah.

And then they did— there was the recent like genai.mil.

Do you remember?

No. Seth was tweeting about this. Oh, interesting. But they're like involved in that too.

Yeah. But I am— what I'm so shocked by is how does AWS have an advantage in 2026 on FedRAMP and like federal classified networks. Like, I get that it's, like, hard. You have to do a lot of cybersecurity. You have to really harden the servers. But you would think that Microsoft and Google would have figured out how to fully support the deepest depths of the US government and get full approval before, like, maybe Amazon would have gone first. But I would have thought that Microsoft and Google would be, like, a year or two behind. And so you would see you would see Gemini and OpenAI like checking those boxes really fast. But, but I don't know, I guess, I guess AWS does have like a material advantage there still. Altman said that while he didn't regret signing a deal with the Defense Department, he wished he hadn't announced the decision so quickly, telling staff that it looked opportunistic and not united with the field. And I think that's, I think that's a good point. I agree with him on that. His remarks echoed a memo he shared with staff and on X Monday in which he said the deal looked opportunistic Sloppy, a groundswell of AI researchers at the company and across Silicon Valley spent the past few days criticizing Altman and the company for what they saw as a capitulation to the Pentagon by essentially agreeing to a deal that allowed AI to be used in all lawful cases. And we will see where the laws go. I've been digging a little bit more into like the rules around surveillance. There's actually like a ton of them and it's a very nuanced thing. And so it feels like it's hard to bake it down into a single line, but a single line is what hits on social media for better or for worse. And so you can see a single line and be like, that's amazing. It's exactly what I think it means. And that could either mean good or bad.

So very, very tricky. Scott Bessant went on CNBC this morning and said no private company will ever dictate the terms of our national security. Anthropic's attempts to push to push use clauses into their contracts with the United States government are unacceptable and their products will no longer be utilized by the US Treasury or any other government agency. So doubling down there. There was also a story in Semaphore this morning from Reid. He writes, Anthropic's investors don't have its back in its fight with the Pentagon. This is very interesting. Anthropic may be standing its ground against the Pentagon, but the AI powerhouse is doing so with a noticeably quiet quarter. Its own high-profile backers Despite the company's defiance, Silicon Valley's biggest players have remained silent. In a recent meeting between Amazon CEO Andy Jassy and Pete Hegseth, the issue of Anthropic came up, according to two people who were briefed on the encounter. Amazon has invested billions in the startup, a crucial part of Amazon's custom chip strategy as the largest consumer of the company's Trainium AI chips. And Hegseth has been threatening to designate Anthropic a supply chain risk. Which would make it impossible for many of the military suppliers to do business with the company. Jassy demurred, declining to take Anthropic's side. The people said he wasn't alone. Despite Anthropic CEO Dario Amadei's very vocal opposition to the Pentagon's demands and rival OpenAI's Sam Altman's running commentary on the matter, a number of Anthropic investors have remained silent. One investor told Semaphore that speaking up might further inflame things with the admin. And that they were still holding out hope the issue could be resolved. Another said that Anthropic requested they say nothing. Anthropic and Amazon declined to comment. The Pentagon didn't immediately respond to a request for comment as well.

Most important thing here is that we get Pete Hegseth on Twitch. Amazon, Andy Jassy sitting down with Pete Hegseth. Hegseth likes Twitter. He likes X. Get him live streaming this press conference. Put them on Twitch. That's the goal here.

Go direct.

Directly to Twitch.

We'll talk to Dean Ball about the back and forth. Noah Smith summed it up honestly in the Ben Thompson versus Dean Ball debate. We have Dean Ball on the show at noon. I think Ben is right. Noah agrees with Ben. There was just no way, or in any nation state, there was no way America or any nation state was ever going to let private companies remain in total control control of the most powerful weapon ever invented. This is a big question about like, where are we? Like, are we there yet? Like, is this the most powerful weapon ever invented? That feels like— this feels very much like a training run for something that's coming in the future, and it's an important conversation, but we're not necessarily there yet. So we'll see. Dean Ball replied. He said, also, Dean versus Ben is wild and an honor. For me as a guy who's been reading Ben since the days of Android will not commodify iOS and use Ben as a core inspiration for my own project today, even though I disagree with Ben here. You will hear much more from me on this soon on a certain podcast. I hope he's referring to TVPN. But the thing is Ben is anti-regulation and does not own the consequences of state seizure of AI, neither do you. There was another post by Dean Ball. I wanna get him to unpack a little bit a little bit more. He said, it is so clear that the important fissure in AI politics is not, right now, is not liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republican, EAC versus EA, or safety versus anti-safety, but instead takes advanced AI seriously as a concept versus does not take advanced AI seriously. And why this is so interesting to me is because it feels like both Dean and Ben are in the takes advanced AI seriously as a concept camp. So we'll see if he agrees with my understanding of both of theirs positions, because it seems like they both are in the same camp of takes advanced AI seriously, but then they disagree about the level of pressure that the government should place on a private corporation.. And so very, very interested in digging into that. Let me tell you about Figma. No matter where your idea starts, Figma Make, Cloud Code, Codex, or Sketch, the Figma canvas is where ideas connect and products take shape. Build in the right direction with Figma. Let's move on to Will Minitis. He has also been chiming in on Darius' statements.

There's a strange— There's a set of strange little fictions that tech has chosen to believe as some sort of basis set for the perceived morality of their work. Chief amongst these is the idea that the legal system doesn't exist, and when it does, it's a precise mechanistic process. Tech is a positive sum and a community, which means you pretend that the standard weapons that exist to the modern corporation, coercive litigation, IP blocking and trolling, standard white shoe law firm stuff. Really taking shots at white shoe lawyers there. Is negative sum or something bad we don't do here. Yeah, this leads to a weirdly formalist view of the legal process that we must avoid at all costs. But if we must engage in it, then it's a fair and repeatable process that must necessarily yield, if not the truth, then at least the same outcome repeatedly and provably. It's this instinct that gives you Anthropic's odd contract formalism. This is how you end up thinking your best move is to show your cards at the forefront and thinking you've won the hand. There's incredible potential for outperformance available to you for betraying any of these silly norms that tech uses to feel good about itself. The modern corporation must avail itself of all possible edge, and holy wars require holy weapons.

So get busy. The, uh, the, the, the idea that sticks with me here is that, uh, if we engage in it, then it's fair in a repeatable process. I talked to someone who was who's doing something with the legal system. And he said that, like, on this particular issue, it was a true, like, left-right issue. Like, a liberal judge would always side on one side of the case, and a conservative judge would always side on the other side of the case. So no matter how well he argued, it came down to did his case get a liberal judge or a conservative judge. Conservative judge. And I was like, oh, well, like, that seems simple. Like, get a judge that's aligned with your company and your position. And he was like, yeah, bad news. The way they decide which judge I get is they literally spin a physical wheel. And I was like, and so there's nothing you can do with that? He's like, yeah, no, like, it is secure. It's like a real process. And like, that's by design. Like, some things are better left in the democratic process to inject a little randomness so that you can't put your finger on the wheel and pick the right judge and get exactly what you want. Like, that's not possible. But it is potentially like the least bad system, but still very stochastic and still very random. And so you wind up in this weird situation where things are not necessarily repeatable. Repeatable is the interesting thing that you can go into. An engagement in a legal context and wind up with a different scenario just somewhat randomly. And that is almost by design. Let me tell you about Turbopuffer, serverless vector and full-text search built from first principles on object storage, fast, 10x cheaper, and extremely scalable. Dario was at the Morgan Stanley Tech Media and Technology Conference today and was dropping bombs on defense. He said, we believe in defending America. Anthropic has been working with the national security community for 2 years. We are the most lean forward on AI acceleration. He says, we do not see hitting a wall this year. We'll have a radical acceleration that surprises everyone. Exponentials catch people off guard. We are at the precipice of something incredible. We need to manage it the right way. I'm very interested to hear Like this idea that he thinks we're at the end of the exponential, I feel like most technological processes— Karpathy was saying this maybe. He was saying like AI is a continuation of previous technological revolutions, right?

Yeah, that was why he said we're not going to see like massive growth in GDP. I think that was his reasoning.

Yeah.

It's just kind of the same process. Same process. Or you saw computers, then you saw internet, then you saw AI.

It's the same curve. Yeah, it's very interesting. I mean, there are people that, like, he's saying there, like, we don't see hitting a wall this year, but it begs the question, like, do you think that there's gonna be a plateau? Because at a certain point, like, you plot out the AI revenues and you get to something that's larger than GDP, and then GDP has to move in order to grow. Like, what happens at the end state? What does the end state look like? I feel like, "We gotta talk about this." Me and Tyler were talking about just the general like AI safety discourse on both sides always ends with people just saying like, "We gotta talk about this." No one has any answer to, you know, "We gotta figure this out, guys. We all gotta talk about it." We gotta talk to each other. Yeah, yeah. No one's like, "I have a clear plan. I think it'll work. You might disagree with me, but this is my plan." And this is what we're going to do, and here are the steps. And I think this gets us the good outcome. Everyone's just like, I don't know. It's very, very weird. Just from a comms perspective, it's very weird.

I mean, I feel like that's how decisions get made in companies. If a decision is really obvious, you can handle it over text. If it's not, it's like, let's discuss live.

Yeah, but I mean, you talk to a lot of companies about their plans. I mean, the good companies can think in decades and think like, okay, we're gonna do this and then we're gonna make a— I mean, the original Tesla plan, we're gonna make a sports car and then we're gonna make a sedan and then we're gonna make a cheaper car and like that's the plan. And there was no like, oh, we gotta talk about this. It was like, yeah, we're gonna make a bunch of cars and then we're gonna make more factories to make more cars and like this is the plan. We're just not really seeing that from Lably at the moment, but still plenty of optimism. The square packing, circle packing discourse has hit the timeline. I absolutely love this. First, let me tell you about Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform that grows with your business and lets you sell in seconds online, in store, on mobile, on social, on marketplaces, and now with AI agents. So John Bidwell in 1997 found a more optimal way to fit squares 17 squares into a larger square. The smallest square that contained all 17 looks like an absolutely deranged solution. Everyone would expect that it's just a nice even grid, you take, you add 1, but if you pack them in this way, you get 17 squares of absolute chaos on the next slide. And someone made a waffle maker Someone made a waffle maker that optimally packs 17 squares into, into the squares of the—

You will get mocked at breakfast.

You will get mocked by anyone except a mathematician, I suppose. Yeah. So Kevin says, for years, society was limited to only 16 syrup squares per waffle. But with recent combinatorial optimization breakthroughs, our research department has achieved previously unheard of densities of waffle syrup. It's great, great news. Very, very funny that this came through. And then someone in the previous post was posting, "The universe is not real, dude. This is ridiculous. I'm gonna fight God." Because it looks very crazy to pack an arbitrary number of squares within another square.

But that's— someone should do this for cubicles in an office.

Can you imagine if you're in the one cubicle that's slightly off-kilter and everyone's like, look dude, like, you get— you have the same amount of space as everybody else, and you're like, yeah, but I'm at a 37-degree angle to the wall and it's driving me insane. That would be very, very odd.

Did you see researchers at the University of Southern Denmark developed a limbless soft robot that crawls using air-filled chambers and kirigami-inspired flaps. You're going to love this. I hate it.

You're going to love it. I am the Indiana Jones of tech podcasting. I hate snakes. I absolutely hate snakes. Very, very weird. It's over, boys, says Autism Capital. Very weird. But exciting that people are working on robotics. I'm sure there's some odd application.

Yeah, I'm sure there's no ultra nefarious use cases for something like this.

We're going subterranean. Anderal's already working on it. What do you got, Tyler?

These look like—

these would be good for medical.

For what? Medical. You make them really small. Yeah, maybe.

And that's also like— Yeah, would you volunteer as a trial subject? I think you should go first. If you think they're so good, I think you should go first.

Someone launched ciggies.app, the most comprehensive archive of Chinese cigarettes to exist on the Western internet. Discover new packs and their history, track favorites and packs you already tried, share your collection. The Chinese cigarette industry is absolutely fascinating. I think it makes like hundreds of billions of dollars in profit for the government. The main cigarette company is nationalized. Oh, wow. And so they make an absolute ton of money. They fund their military with it.

It's a fascinating— Yeah, really lovely website.

We really got to go into the history of nationalization because the nationalization and privatization is interesting all over the place. I looked into nuclear weapons and how those were nationalized. Fascinating sort of like hybrid public-private partnerships with a lot of consultants in the private sector, and then obviously the defense primes making the missiles, the ICBMs, but not the warheads. But in the tobacco industry, there are some fascinating examples of countries that start cigarette manufacturing businesses, develop large sort of deeper supply chain operations, and then privatize those, and then that when they sell that asset to a Western tobacco firm, there's sort of like a cash windfall for the government that can be very beneficial. They can go build roads with the money, or I don't know, cut people's taxes. But there's the other side of, okay, a company is getting large and then it gets nationalized. But plenty— are there any other industries that stuck out to you, Tyler, as you were—

I mean, there's— I'm still like kind of looking at this. There's so many like weird ways to view nationalization though. Because at least in the US historically, it's been mostly basically during wartime or if a really important company is facing huge crisis. So 2008, I think GM at one point— Government Motors. Yeah, the Treasury owned like 60% of GM.

So there's all interesting things. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But even if you think about tobacco in the US, almost having super strong taxes is like almost like kind of a form of nationalization, right? Where you're basically taking like a ton of the profits away.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, that was always the pushback of, of, you know, if there's runaway profits by the AI companies, just, you know, instead of nationalizing them in that, in that scenario, you can just tax them and then redistribute the profits.

Yeah, there's like this real spectrum, right? Because like if you think of like Intel. Yeah. So the government now owns like it's like 10% of Intel, right? So like, but what does that actually mean? Yeah, like running Intel.

Yeah.

Like, do they have a say? Like right now they're not supposed to. Yeah, maybe that changes. It's like this, this interesting spectrum.

Yeah, totally, totally. Anthropic is on track to generate annual revenue of almost $20 billion, a projection based on current performance, more than doubling its run rate. This is from Bloomberg. And Zero Hedge says unprecedented damage control leak after leak. Just how 'How bad is it?' And Matt Slotnick says, 'The leak is bad, sir, really bad. Now everyone knows we're the fastest-growing software company of all time. We must put a stop to this.' I think what Zero Hedge was getting at was that the reason you leak strong economic performance is to allay concerns around pressure from the government, supply chain risk, because really, the revenue would not be growing if companies were pulling out because they're so worried about the supply chain risk that they gotta move on so fast.

But still, still funny. Clearly adoption is outstripping any kind of pullback from the Department of Treasury and various other kind of organizations in the government.

Yeah. Ara Karazian over at Ramp has some extra data. He said most people in tech know Anthropic commands the majority of API spend by, US businesses. As of January, Anthropic took 50% of spend on enterprise AI subscriptions too. OpenAI still leads on business count, but the biggest spenders go to Anthropic, all from Ramp Data. And Ben Thompson had some extra context here about the data, but I was, I was actually DMing with Ara last night and it is fascinating what's happening. The market is so, so big that everything is growing and you see these charts and you're like, it's over for this company, it's over for Cursor. And then Cursor puts up $2 billion and there's just more and more growth that's happening because of the diffusion problem and the fact that companies onboard and just more and more companies are onboarding to AI tools every day. Ben Thompson said there are some caveats to the ramp data. It only includes OpenAI and Anthropic, not Azure Copilot or Google Cloud Gemini. Ramp is also probably tilted more towards startups and smaller companies than larger enterprises. That noted, it certainly matches the vibes Anthropic established that code, that coding foothold, and has been on an absolute tear over the last 6 months in particular in terms of not just its model capabilities but also cloud code and the overall sense that it is in the lead and enterprise CTOs are a smaller and more easily reachable set of customers than consumers at large. Meanwhile, an AI subscription business model has always been more compelling for the enterprise than for the consumer space, for the same reason that productivity apps always end up as enterprise products, not consumer ones. There's no consumer CRM, for example. Enterprises actually value productivity and are willing to pay for it. Consumers don't and won't, which is why the business model makes sense for the consumer space, at least at scale, is advertising. So he's once again ad-pilled. What else is in the news?

Eddie, endowment Eddie, put this into context. Even in Q4 of 2021, PublicSaaS quarterly net new ARR peaked at $2.6 billion. Anthropic has added nearly $11 billion in early 2026.

Yeah, this is from October.

Net net up versus like run rate, not actual. ARR necessarily, but still absolutely shocking.

Yeah.

Tyler said, for those who track at home, Anthropic just added a Palantir in revenue in the month of February alone. Yeah, pretty unprecedented.

Howard Linzon said Anthropic pulled off the rare quadruple Lindy. Great product. People pay for it. People love it and promote it even though they pay. And the people like Dario's handling of government. Next up, the people tear Dario down. There is this interesting, like, tall poppy syndrome in Silicon Valley a little bit where, like, whoever's at the top, it gets like, you know, triple glazed and then it needs to be torn down a little bit. So we'll see where all this goes.

But putting AI growth in the context of the shoe market. Yes. Former guest of the show, shares that New Balance is up almost 20% year over year at 19%, Adidas 13%, Lululemon 9%. Lululemon's doing well. And then every other brand here in the negative, Puma at -8%, Under Armour -9.4%, Nike -10%, and Jordan Brand down 16%. Really insane. To see such a huge decline. I feel like the sneaker era, the era, the Jordan era, is, uh, over for now.

Is this more of like changing in taste that New Balance and Adidas are growing and Nike is not?

Because if they were all—

if all of these like major household name brands were trading down, I would say like, oh, this is like the Temu effect, this is the white label effect, this is the, the Allbirds, the DSC, just more competition from newer brands, challenger brands, but it seems like there's more of just like a reallocation from Nike to New Balance and Adidas. Like Adidas might just be on a brand tear doing some good advertising, but New Balance has been killing it with their positioning. Interesting to see total revenue as well. Nike is huge, $46 billion. Adidas is down at $26. Lululemon's at $10. Lululemon has done really, really well. New Balance, they're bigger than New Balance. Anyway, my portfolio every day at the opening bell looks like D-Day, says Hooman. This is an absolute disaster. It really is so crazy. I was trying to explain yesterday to a friend like how the market— I was like, you're probably getting destroyed, right? And he was like, yeah, it's terrible. And I was like, Well, is this your retail investor friend? Yes, it might shock you to learn that the market overall is flat for the year. It's an absolute tail. Korean stocks are crashing. The KOSPI index, the Korea Stock Exchange, is down 10%. Korean stocks are crashing, says Joe Weisenthal. The South Korean stock market fell over 8% and triggered a circuit breaker. Jim Cramer said, Beware of South Korean spillover to our markets. WDC, STX, SNDK, MU, all still vulnerable. So there's lots of companies that are at risk. We will dig into the South Korean stock market collapse soon, but we have our next guest in the Restream waiting room. First, let me tell you about Sentry. Sentry shows developers what's broken and helps them fix it fast. That's why 150,000 organizations use it to keep their apps working. And without further ado, let's bring in Dean Ball from the Restream waiting room.

Dean, how are you doing?

Good to see you. Good.

How are you all? We're fantastic. Uh, I've been enjoying your coverage. We had Ben Thompson on the show Monday. Uh, it's very funny that this debate is phrased as the Ball versus Thompson debate because, uh, it feels like you agree on way more than you disagree on. But I would love for you to sort of set the table for us and just kind of give us your run of like what actually happened because there are a lot of things that have been said but not enacted. There's been bunches back and forth. So what are the rules of the road? What are the table of facts that you think like are the most reliable here?

First of all, there are very few people I respect more than Ben Thompson and who have inspired me more than Ben Thompson. So yeah, I think we agree on the vast majority of tech policy issues and other tech stuff. Yeah, I mean, I think basically what's going on on here is that, you know, there's a dispute about a contract, right? And that's fine. Grown-ups can have disputes about contracts, and they cannot come to terms of business, and then they don't sign the contract or they cancel the contract, and that's fine. The problem here is the punishment. The problem here is that the government is saying, if you don't do business with us, we'll destroy your company, or we'll threaten to. And that just can't be the way that America works. And I don't really like You know, there are people who say, including I think, you know, this was an argument that Ben made, that, well, what should Anthropic have expected? You know, what should they have expected? The way they talk about AI being so powerful, how could they not expect the government to bully them and quasi-nationalize them in these ways? And my view is like, well, no, what we should do is have like modest technocratic regulation so that we can avoid these sort of extreme outcomes of either like Yeah, total decentralization, total anarchy, or like, Bolshevism, right? Like, we can avoid that. It's called capitalism. It's called like the system that we have now. And I've spent the last 2 years being confused as to why we don't try to do that.

So in terms of— Okay, okay. So I guess so far Anthropic has not been labeled a supply chain risk. Yeah.

Officially.

Is your belief that the Department of War is just really busy right now for obvious reasons and they haven't gotten around to it yet? Or do you think that it's coming and that's why, you know, like, where do we actually go from here?

I truly don't know. I operate under the assumption that War Secretary Pete Haig said last Friday that they're going to do it and they're going to do an extremely expansive version of it. So I operate under the assumption that he's not lying about that and basically take him at his word. It'll happen eventually, but I don't know.

Do you think he— I mean, I know that there was some debate over the shape of supply chain risk, whether that means you have a partnership with Amazon, Amazon works with the government, you can't work with Amazon at all, or Amazon can't use your software specifically, your model specifically on government contracts. Do you have any idea of where the clarity might be found there?

Well, so in terms of what the supply chain risk designation actually allows, my reading of the law is that it would be only in the fulfillment of the government contract and not more broadly. But there's a lot of things. First of all, you could just write it more broadly and try to fight it in court and see what happens, right? And who knows, right? You could also jawbone, right? You could, you could have the president call Amazon and say, hey, we don't think you should be working with these guys, right? Very hard to sue about that because that's not a policy action. And there's also a very, very large range of other things that the federal government could do if it wanted to, if it wanted to really harass. Which, you know, the irony of this is that we all know this because of what happened to Elon's companies during the Biden administration. I objected to that then and I object to this now.

Yeah, unpack a little bit of that history.

Take us through it. Yeah, so, you know, basically Elon being kind of a political enemy of the Democrats, the Biden administration brought on a very large number of investigations, regulatory actions, FCC, DOJ, A lot of different other things. I think there's a chart somewhere and it's like 12 to 20 things. You know, it's a huge number of different things that they brought. And each one of those is gonna entail millions of dollars in compliance costs and legal costs for these companies. So it's non-trivial amounts of harassment that's going on. And I, again, I think we shouldn't do that kind of thing.

Sure. Is this broadly under the umbrella of like lawfare?

Yeah.

Okay.

Walk me through this idea of the fissure in AI politics right now is not liberal or conservative, Republican versus Democrat, EAC versus EA, safety versus anti-safety, but instead takes advanced AI seriously as a concept versus does not take advanced AI seriously as a concept. It feels like you and Ben Thompson both are taking AI seriously as a concept. Does that map with your reading on his arguments, your arguments, it feels like there's just a different downstream understanding of how this plays out in a world where advanced AI is a serious concept to grapple with, different than making pencils.

Yeah, right. Like, I mean, I think the other way to put this would be like, do you think that Dario Amadei and Anthropic are directionally, and the other frontier labs, it's worth noting, are directionally right about where this is going? Or do you think, that you think they're not. And also not just do you think they are, but do you really take that seriously? Do you own the consequences of believing that these guys could really be correct? And I think a consistent theme of my writing over the last year especially has been kind of being confused that there's people who just do not take they might say that like, oh, AI's progressing very quickly, but they don't actually like, their downstream assumptions and like conclusions about what we should do don't seem to sort of reflect that. It's very hard. It's a very hard thing to do. But yeah, that would be like my broad take.

So this is where I start to get confused because if I take advanced AI seriously, I do, then it feels like nuclear weapon level technology in a few years. Maybe it's 5, maybe it's 2, but that leads me more into the Ben Thompson camp where I say, well, of course there's going to be a dramatic showdown between the US government and the private company that has invented something akin to nuclear weapons. And so walk me through how you are thinking of, you know, if we're developing new new powerful technology, how should the government actually interact with that aside from like the lawfare in the short term? Like what's the long-term solution?

Yeah, I mean, the long-term solution I think is probably gonna be a hybrid system where there just is regulation of these frontier labs and there is government oversight of them. But it's just like, it's like, you know, JP Morgan is a private entity that lobbies against government policy all the time. Right? They're a totally independent actor of the government, and yet they're also deeply intertwined with the government. I'm not saying that we should regulate AI companies like banks. I hope not. But I'm saying that, like, you know, technocratic regulation exists in, you know, capitalist republics, and it's not communism. And we didn't, like, nationalize the banks, right? Um, so it would be— my proposal would be to sort of take step-by-step approaches, uh, to solving actual problems, not just doing regulation for its own sake, but really trying to shape this so that it isn't some sort of violent— or not literally violent, but some sort of conflict— and instead is, you know, a gradual development of like, yeah, this is how the government and the public ultimately achieve oversight of these labs. Because I would agree that, um, if we are going to this place of like near-term superintelligence or something, that isn't going to just exist in an unregulated fashion. That's kind of been my point for a year and a half now.

Yeah, so what's the gap between regulation and nationalization? Because at a certain point, if we're in the nuke analogy, it feels like the government takes that and then they get to decide where they point those nukes. And as I was reflecting on the creation of the atomic bomb, I was sort of left optimistic about American project and optimistic about the way that played out. I don't know if you have a different side, but I feel like the government did get control of nuclear weapons. There hasn't been a nuclear war, and the whole concept of like the person that you're voting for will have their— they'll have the nuclear football, they'll have their finger on the button. Do you trust them? That is an animating force in our electoral process, whether you like the current administration or the previous administration, whether you trust them or not. But like Americans vote on that question every 4 years. And I think that that's a good system.

I like that. 100%. I think that the nuclear bomb analogy starts to break down.

Okay.

But one thing I'd say about, about nuclear weapons is that it's true that nuclear weapons, you know, we got that and that went, I think, basically pretty okay as far as these things go. But, you know, what we didn't really get is nuclear energy to the— nearly to the extent that we could have.

Completely agree with you on this.

Yes, continue. Right. And so that created this single regulatory sort of point of failure. Yeah. Single points of failure are often problematic in complex system engineering. So, you know, what do you— what do you do? Well, you know, maybe, maybe we shouldn't have done it. You know, maybe we should— maybe the government effect on the sort of the equivalent of the consumer side, the economic benefits, we didn't really get those as much as we could have. So that would be one thing. But the other thing is that even nuclear energy, you know, it's not directly useful to you. It is not. Nuclear energy is not like you are not personally going to express your liberty, exercise your liberty through nuclear energy or nuclear bombs, but you will with artificial superintelligence, and you certainly will with today's coding agents, right? And so the question is, like, should the government be able to own that? And my view is that without really substantial guardrails, that is just almost certain to devolve into a profound act of tyranny. And so I think that having the companies separate and apart from the government, but still overseen by the public through regulation, that is kind of like my view as to what is ideal. But the problem is that Saying that view, hey, it's really hard to get that right. Regulation is tough to get right. You want to get it exactly right. And it's possible that all my ideas are terrible and they're all going to go to shit, right? That's totally possible. But what you want to do is you want to at least try to get that right. The problem is that that view has been characterized very often as sort of supporting regulatory capture. So it's like, you know, what did Anthropic expect the way they talked about these models? Well, maybe they expected for like California's SB 53 to pass and for there to be like modest technocratic light-touch regulation that only affects the frontier labs. And like, I don't think that's lobbying for regulatory capture. I think that's actually just the prudent thing to do. Even if I don't agree with every regulatory impulse that Anthropic has, I think that in broad strokes, that's the play.

Yeah.

How do you, oh, sorry, Jordy, you go.

Yeah, I wanted to ask like, How much do you think information asymmetry played into the dynamic of the negotiation and the results? I mean, you have the Department of War, who presumably everyone on that side has some idea that we're about to enter a conflict. And Friday comes around, the Department of War knows they're hours away from a strike. Dario, according to Emile, isn't kind of engaging with him. And out of that, maybe the admin says, hey, this is not a partner that we can rely on and we don't want other groups in the government to be relying on it as well. And it just kind of blows up.

Yeah, I mean, so I think some of this is about personality. Some of this seems like it's about personality clashes. Some of it's about politics, undoubtedly. I think some of it is also about principle, though, right? Like, and I think the DOD is not crazy at all. Like, my, my problem here has never been with the DOD's policy principles here. They're saying Anthropic can't put usage restrictions that look like public policy because we set public policy. Dario Amadei doesn't decide when autonomous lethal weapons are ready for primetime. We do. And I think they're 100% right about that. But the solution to that problem is you don't try to destroy the business of Anthropic. You tell Dario, no thanks to the business. And you move on and you find somebody else who will do business with you.

Which is what Dario said in the CBS interview. He said there's other providers, we can agree not to work with each other.

Sure.

Yes, right, that's fine. That's fine. I mean, frankly, the tokens are probably higher margin for Anthropic, you know, sold to private entities, not to the government, because Anthropic is subsidizing them for the government.

So it's a bad business as we're seeing. What's the good outcome here?

I think we cancel the contract. And look, the other thing is like the DOD says, well, we have all these other contractors. There's Palantirs of the world, and Palantir might rely on Anthropic. And so we can't have our contractors can't be reliant upon Anthropic, because if that's true, then we're still relying upon Anthropic. So it's fine for them to say no one who has usage restrictions like this can do business with any of our contractors. I think that's fine for in the fulfillment of DOD contracts. Like, I think that is perfectly fine.

Isn't that basically supply chain risk by any other name?

Well, no, because supply chain risk would be specific, would be done at the company level as opposed to like at the—

At the contract level. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I agree with you. Also, can you explain a little bit more about the logic of supply chain risk? Because I was shocked when like DJI is not on there. Deepseek doesn't seem to be on there. Quen doesn't seem to be on there. Like, this feels like very bad if I'm just trying to think of like my shortlist for things that I might want to supply chain risk. Like, yeah, it's good Huawei's on there, but I got 12 other. Unitree. Yeah, Unitree I don't think is on there. Yeah, like, when should the government apply this? Does it matter if it's international?

Is there—

is the national versus international designation important?

Well, one thing I'll say is we don't know everyone on the supply chain risk list because sometimes those designations can occur in classified contexts. But, but it is the case, I think, that the supply chain risk designation, if you go and look at the statutory history, it's really intended for foreign adversary companies. This, this is about This is about, it's really about China, frankly. It's really about China. And so it is kind of, you know, wild to be in a, whatever you think of the chip export policy of this administration of, you know, wanting to sell more Nvidia GPUs to Chinese companies, it is kind of wild to have that policy and then also to say that we're gonna treat American companies that we don't like, like Chinese companies, like enemies of the state. I don't think we should be doing that.

Talk to me about what your 2025 was like, what your goals were, what of those goals have been achieved? Like, give me sort of a scorecard on like AI policy in DC.

Well, you know, what I wanted to do is, I mean, first of all, you know, obviously getting the action plan done, that was a, you know, 18, 20 hour a day kind of thing for 4 months of my life. So that was an intense sprint. And, Getting it done is obviously a career highlight for me. I didn't get it done unilaterally, of course, a lot of people worked on it. But that was a big part of it, sort of course correcting from what I thought were some of the excesses of the Biden policy. A lot of which was, by the way, this national security inflected control over the labs. So it does disappoint me to see us sort of progressing back into Biden era mentality, which is what this is. So So that is a little bit concerning to me. But yeah, like that, and then more broadly, I want to AGI pill people. I want people to feel the importance of what is going on and hopefully try to think more strategically about this issue. Because the thing is that it can't just be one or two people doing this. It has to be a community of people.

So, so walk me through what AGI pilling means in March of 2026.

More Mac Minis than people on Capitol Hill.

Yeah, I mean, like, I mean, like there's terms like software-only singularity, that robotics will be delayed, that there might be— Dario talks about like the end of the exponential. He doesn't seem necessarily superintelligence pilled. He seems like we will get someone who's 150 IQ and you will be able to run it in a data center like the— what does he say? A million geniuses in a data center. Country. It's not one god— country of geniuses in a data center. It's not one god that's like so time traveling and teleportation. It's not entirely all this crazy sci-fi. It's a little more narrow. So, in terms of timelines, expectations? Like, what are you telling to elected officials these days?

Well, I think the very challenging part is that there's the trajectory of the technology and then there's the effect of the technology in the near term, right? So the technology that we have right now is already legitimately science fiction in my mind. But we don't live in a science— we don't— the world is not obviously more science fiction-esque than it was 3 years ago. We don't have flying cars. We don't live on the to the moon, right? We're not doing it, and we don't have Dyson spheres assembled around the sun or whatever. And the reason for that is that it takes a very long time to transform institutions and to transform the way that organizations are structured. And so again, like, that's the important thing is that to me, it's about the actual winner of the AI competition is going to be the country, the civilization that is like most imaginative at like We went from artisanal types of manufacturing to factories to eventually assembly lines, right? We're going to do that, but for the next generation of things and inventing that. What is all that? What does it look like? And that's going to be where the real economic benefits come and the real things that change the world come from. But those take time and they're really conceptually difficult.

How do you think about— competition with China with the backdrop of nationalization. I heard this, I heard this quote that was like, if you nationalized SpaceX a decade ago, like you just get NASA, like you don't get SpaceX if it's owned by the government, it needs to be completely independent. And so with that backdrop, like what does a healthy American AI lab ecosystem look like that can actually go and win on a geopolitical scale?

Well, I think first of all, yes, it's got to be private companies because they can move faster and be more innovative. Also, very importantly, it's about trust, right? Like selling— if we're going to sell these services internationally, we need other governments and foreign companies to trust our companies, to trust that they're not just ultimately linked to the US military, right? Because that's the problem, is that doing business with China, You sort of know, well, at the end of the day, every company in China is ultimately a military asset, and that diminishes trust in Chinese companies. We're— that's something really profound that we're eroding with this action right here, and that worries me quite a bit.

Um, so yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. In the context of like sovereign AI throughout Europe, and I was just like, yeah, look, France didn't need its own Google. They could just use Google. Like, it was fine. But when you actually take AI seriously, then you start to wonder about, okay, well, does their strategy, as behind as they might be, does it actually make sense?

Yeah.

One of the things I hope we invent is— open source models, I think, are useful and good. But I actually think what's more important right now is like open source infrastructure such that more people can sort of like really put their own imprint on models and more people can feel that sovereign experience without having to like build, you know, multi-gigawatt data centers and whatnot. I hope we can do that. That's a really interesting thought.

Like a national compute reserve or something like that?

Or like, yeah.

That like academic institutions could access?

It could be like that, but also even more than just the compute itself, also like all the infrastructure that connects the compute and all the, like, I think there's something really interesting there and I'm excited to see more people do things like that.

Yeah, what do you think about the concept of like an FDA for new models? You're releasing a new model, like it has to pass a battery of tests or benchmarks that are maintained by a, like a federal institution in the same way that when you, when you release a new cancer drug, you have to test it on mice first, something like that.

Yeah, I think the problem with that is that it's the— there's too much to test for because the models can do too much. And so we don't know what to test for. So we have very clear endpoints when we're testing a drug in a person, right? We have very clear things that we want to test for. It's much harder to do that in the context of a generalist AI model. So that's one of the things that worries me about licensing, in addition to licensing can slow things down and it can— regulatory capture is very real. It's a very real thing. I have always thought of AI as being a little bit more like financial services, where the regulation is not actually targeted at the products per se. The regulation is more generally targeted at the entities themselves. So we regulate banks. We don't We do regulate loans, but we do that by way of regulating banks. We don't, like, have a— there's not a government agency that, like, approves every single loan that a bank makes. We— what we do is we look at the entity of the bank and we say, this is, this is a sound institution, this is a soundly governed institution. That's the kind of thing that I think will be— that's— I don't know. Again, I don't think we should regulate AI like banks per se, but I think that is a useful structural intuition for thinking about AI regulatory.

Policy.

Yeah. Yeah.

Jordy, please. How much, how much attention is D.C. paying to the news out of Square? The pushback from, or Block, the pushback from Silicon Valley was, hey, you're blaming this on AI, but it doesn't feel like maybe that's a small part of the reason to do this riff, but certainly not the entire story. But then a bunch of groups are going to use this as, you know, example number one as to changes in the labor force due to AI.

Well, it's a bad combination because it's all these companies, all these tech companies that overhired in the sort of immediate post-COVID. And then now they're also the most exposed to AI, right? They're the ones that are adopting AI the most aggressively. They do the things that AI is best at. There's lots of software engineering, And so like it's both things happening at once, I would say. And that creates an exaggerated sort of funhouse-like effect of the actual impact of AI on the labor market. I'm very skeptical that like we're going to see things like that at like wide, you know, firm level anytime soon, you know, in the broader economy. I think we could see it more in the software engineering discipline because there are a lot of big software engineering enterprises that hire too many people, right? So like, You know, I think that's a very live possibility, but DC is DC. People are gonna interpret the news for whatever's convenient for them, you know? And when you play the long game, you have to try to just build credibility over the long term with people. But yeah, I mean, everyone's gonna say this is evidence for whatever I'm on about.

Mm-hmm, yeah. Hypothetically, how do you think something would play out If there was a battle on the moon and NASA says, hey, we wanna buy a bunch of rockets from Blue Origin or SpaceX and we wanna go to the moon to fight this war on the moon. And the private company CEOs say, no, we're not interested in that, we wanna just launch more satellites. It feels like another analogy for the nationalization conversation. And maybe it's just a weird time because I feel like in previous eras, a lot of the— you go back to the dollar a year men, a lot of American industrialists sort of stepped up to the charge and were fans of the government. And now there's much more— it feels like we're more divided than ever. But what is the correct— way to marshal a cornered resource as a government?

Well, I would think in practice that the companies, the SpaceXes and Blue Origins of the world, would actually eagerly help the government there. But let's take your hypothetical and say that they didn't. There's an authority called the Defense Production Act, Title I, which is— there's something called priorities authority, and the government can quite literally just put itself at the front to the front of the line for any launch of any rocket. And that's what I would suggest they do in that situation.

Yes.

Rather than commandeer the rockets themselves. That's kind of what I would suggest.

That makes sense. So Defense Production Act, but it requires extraordinary circumstances.

The president can do it basically whenever he wants. It's fine. The president can make a unilateral finding. The other thing I'll say that's funny about all this is that, like, you know, one of the things I was enthusiastic about putting in the action plan what a little notice provision of the action plan is basically saying. In the event of a national emergency, DOD needs to have— DOD needs to know with the hyperscalers how it's going to commandeer the data centers, uh, for like if it needs like tons of compute in some sort of national emergency. That's in the action plan. So like, I'm not here saying like total liberty, you know, whatever, like no government involvement. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that like Anthropic has a right exist. If they don't do business with the government, we shouldn't kill them.

That's all I'm saying. Yeah.

Yeah.

I think the Wall Street Journal called it like a fight about vibes. And I think most people are not at the point where they say, yes, AI is actually nukes. And yes, like the one company should, like, you know, like they should be destroyed if they don't give it all up. Like, that's a very middle-of-the-road position that I think a lot of people agree on. Yeah, 100%. Yeah, that makes sense.

Jordy, anything else?

That's it for now. Well, thanks so much for coming on.

Yeah, good to see you.

Hey guys, thanks so much.

Good to see you. We'll talk to you soon. Cheers.

Goodbye.

Let me tell you about Vibe.co, where DTC brands, B2B startups, and AI companies advertise on streaming TV. Pick channels, target audiences, and measure sales just like on Meta.

Another— Tyler Dean said that the reason we don't have Dyson spheres is because— I saw that. Institutions aren't quick to adapt. So you have no more excuses not to build a Dyson Sphere.

Yes.

Make it happen. This is a high-agency organization. Yeah. We have very little institutional overhead. Make it happen.

No, no.

In the limit, I believe it. I mean, it's like a— it's a long chain of events that require all of these different diffusions to happen. But—

We got to ask. Jared, his Dyson Sphere timeline.

Yes, yes. I mean, obviously the big question is moon versus Mars, but I like getting up to speed on the plan for the Dyson Sphere. That should be firmly within the 100-year plan for NASA. I believe it. Let me tell you about the New York Stock Exchange. Want to change the world? Raise capital at the New York Stock Exchange. Just do it. And let me tell you about Graphite, code review for the age of AI. Graphite helps teams on GitHub ship higher quality software faster. And without further ado, we have Scott Gabor returning to the show and Jared Eisenman for the first time. Welcome to the show. How are you two doing?

What's going on, guys? What's happening? We're doing great.

How are you? We're doing fantastically. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us. Please take us through the news today because I'm very excited to hear from you. I'm very excited to be joined by you today.

Well, I'm just here for moral support for my good friend Jared. So Jared, you want to give them the news?

Fantastic. Sure. And by the way, I appreciate giving me a 100-year timeframe on the Dyson sphere because— We'll get to that. I mean, we're over a half century here just getting back to the moon. So we've got to take things in steps. But really, that's where the partnership with OPM comes in. And Scott has been a champion for us here with NASA Force. We gotta rebuild some of our core competencies here at NASA. You know, we made some big announcements last week that said, look, if we wanna get back to the moon, we wanna achieve President Trump's vision within the timeframes that have been established, we're gonna have to do things differently. We're not gonna launch moon rockets every 3 years. We're gonna try and launch them in less than a year. And people are like, that's impossible. I was like, have we, you know, I literally went and got the data from the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo era saying, you know, we used to do this every 3 and a half months. We literally, from the time Apollo 7 splashed down to Apollo 8 launched to fly around the moon, is measured in weeks. It's like 8, 9 weeks here. So what do you mean we can't do it? Well, they said, look, we don't have some of the same expertise we used to have during the space shuttle era of turning our mobile launchers around. You know, if you're launching every 3 years, you build up all this experience and expertise, and then they go out after the mission is launched and they go into industry. So we gotta do some things differently right now. One of which is we got to start bringing in folks back from industry that have the expertise to grow our young talent because we have no shortage of people that want to grow up and work at NASA. I mean, you know, it's like from the time they're kids, they want to get there. So plenty of, you know, young talent coming in the system. But what Scott and OPM are giving us the ability to do is bring in term-based appointments from industry, some brilliant minds from, you know, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, all our great tech companies who say, I want to serve my country. I want to stick around for a couple of years under a term-based appointment, elevate some of the talent. That's how we're going to get back into turning rockets around in months instead of years. That's how we're going to get back to the moon.

So there's amazing—

this is part of— I was going to say, look, this is part of a broader thing that I think you and I talked about a little bit, which is there's kind of two pieces we're trying to solve on the, you know, the government tech side. One is obviously, can we get early career young people in? As Jared said, you know, kind of NASA, which unlike most of the federal government actually has done a really good job there. The other piece is how do we leverage the private sector to help make sure that we have much better connectivity with the private sector and public government? And so the second part of TechForce, right, was always the private companies having people come in. Obviously we want to basically double down on that now for NASA Force and make sure that we've got kind of all those relevant industry partners who are saying, hey, look, we want to have like some of our best people come in, second themselves for a year or two, help make NASA, you know, as effective as possible in bringing up the next generation of folks. And then if people want to go back to the private sector, like, that's great.

They can go do that. Yeah. So talk about the, the, the type of roles that you need at NASA. When I think NASA, I think frontier science, rocket science, but also the actual astronauts. And then when I think of industry, I think of like the manufacturing expertise, the person that's going to build the rockets repeatedly because there's this beautiful partnership between between the private industry and NASA these days. But how does that actually, when the rubber meets the road, who do you need to come join NASA that might not, or, you know, they're perfectly suited to advance NASA's mission right now?

Yeah, well, I'll tell you, there's two categories there that you mentioned that we don't need to worry about. So astronauts, we always get, you know, tens of thousands of applications there. So that's good. And I would even say on science, Because when it comes to the planetary science and heliophysics that we do at NASA, no one, we're the only game in town.

Oh yeah.

So, you know, in 2028, we're gonna launch a nuclear-powered octocopter to Titan to search for signs of life. You're gonna wanna come to NASA to do that job. But there are areas where we have, you know, some overlap with industry when it comes to building our heavy lift rocket, SLS, where, you know, industry is also doing very similar things, which, which to be honest is a problem. NASA should only be focused on the near impossible, what no one else can do. But SLS is a component of a broader strategy that President Trump laid out with Artemis. We're starting with SLS, eventually we'll evolve to other vehicles so that there's an Artemis 100 and beyond someday. But while we have some of that overlap, when it comes to our launch pad, turning launch operations, mechanical engineers there, we need propulsion engineers that can be helpful on our vehicles. Those that have cryofluid, specializations so we can stop some of these hydrogen leaks, some of these helium flow issues we've had before. Those are areas that industry is extremely well-versed because we have the healthiest commercial launch industry that we've had in the history of America's space program. And to get people that want to serve their country, give us a couple of years over at NASA, elevate our talent. Like I said, it's going to, it's going to make a huge difference in terms of turning our vehicles, launching with greater frequency, and achieving the president's national space policy.

Can you walk me through the current top few reasons why the Moon is important? Just as a high level. I want to go back. I'm already on board. But for those people who say, I want to hang out on Earth, why are we going to the Moon? Why is the Moon important?

Why is it valuable? Okay, so I'm really glad you asked this question. And there's quite a few answers that go along with it. First, the whole like, shouldn't there be other things that we should be doing? Yeah, and we do. A very small percentage of our resources are actually invested into a national imperative goal like returning to the moon. This isn't the 1960s anymore, where it's 4.5% of the discretionary budget. It's a quarter of a percentage. And you know who's making up the difference? Private industry. Folks like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are putting billions of their own resources in play to build capabilities for the good of the American people and really all of humankind. So it's not the taxpayers footing the bill to do this like it was in the 1960s. What are some other reasons that we should do it? How about we made a promise to the American people and have for 35 years, every president for 35 years has said, we're gonna return to the moon. It was only President Trump under his first term when he created the Artemis program. Now in his second term, my first day on the job where he signs a national space policy that says not only go back to the moon, but also build out a moon base. Are we taking steps in that direction? And after $100 billion, I think we owe it to the American people to do it. I'll give you national security reasons to do it. 1969, July 20th, America, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin on the moon, brings them safely back to Earth, it sends a message to the world. What else is America capable of doing? Well, if you take 35 years and $100 billion and you fail to do it, well, it sends the exact opposite message. That's a real national security implication because then it says something's broken and now I'm gonna encroach on America's leadership across all the most important technological domains. Here's another good reason. We don't know what we're gonna find. I mean, that's the best part of the greatest adventure in human history is going out and learning. Scientific, economic reasons, we will go to the South Pole of the Moon where there's ice. We will use that as a proving ground for power, navigation, communication, in-situ resource manufacturing, the capabilities we're going to need when we someday send American astronauts to Mars. And then we got to be able to bring them back. And the way you're going to do that is probably making propellant on Mars. I'd rather do that 2.5 days from Earth than 9 months away from Earth.

I love it. Jordi?

Those bars fired me up.

How do people actually apply to NASA and how broadly are you casting the net? I think you identified the astronaut program being like the most elite of the most elite. We've all seen that one guy who was like a Navy SEAL and then a doctor and then he became a— Honey Jim. Yeah, yeah, that's right.

But what's he doing now, by the way?

Any idea?

Is he still an astronaut? Oh yeah, he's definitely an astronaut. I mean, look, Johnny Kim is a rockstar, right? I mean, you know, Navy SEAL, you know, Navy SEAL sniper, then goes and gets his MD. I think he got it from Harvard, right? So then he becomes a doctor, then he becomes a NASA astronaut. While he's waiting for his mission, he goes to Navy pilot training, becomes a Navy, a naval aviator. That's amazing. There's nothing this guy can't do. He just came back from the space station. He was up there for 9 months. He actually went up on a Russian Soyuz rocket. Wow. So now he's entitled, to some time off, although I'm going to do everything I can to convince him to come to HQ and help us out a little bit because that kind of leadership and competence, like, we need, we need as much of that as we can get at the top of the organization.

Yeah, that's amazing.

But I guess your question on like, where do people go?

Like, if I'm not, if I'm not a Navy SEAL sniper and I'm not, you know, I'm just a guy who's hardworking, I'm an American and I want a job at NASA, what are the different roles that are open? What are the skill sets what are the skill sets that you're looking for and how do you actually apply?

Yeah, I mean, we're— I tell you, we're looking for a lot of engineers and a lot of technicians. There's a lot of ways to learn about opportunities. You can go anywhere from NASA's website to USAJOBS. We certainly have positions open and we're hitting this on a couple fronts.

We—

another area where Scott has been super helpful, one of the biggest surprises when I was on the job is 75% of our workforce is contractors. Now they get paid exactly, almost exactly the same thing as civil servants. They don't necessarily get all the same benefits, but they're working for companies that have a 40% gross profit premium on top of it, which actually, you know, is about a billion a year, a little more than that, that we could be using for science and discovery. But even more than that, they have different tools for collaboration, for HR systems. Just, you know, you take 75% of your workforce as contractors, and then you combine that with 5 prime contractors and hundreds of subcontractors building your rockets. Probably no wonder why some things take a little longer than they should, cost a little bit more than they should. So we're converting a lot of contractors back to civil servants. We have this great pipeline of young talent that comes in through our internship programs. We have over 1,000 every— I think it's on like a trimester type basis, we bring in fresh talent. But then really, how do you bring up that talent and make them lethal within the domains that we focus on here at NASA, those critical engineering capabilities and science, operations, and technicians. That's where, uh, that's where NASA's Tech Force comes in.

Yeah, I was gonna say, just on the— yeah, from a tactical perspective, if anybody's interested today, just go to, you know, US Tech Force, uh, and we will obviously make sure we have it. And then as we, uh, roll out formally the NASA Force side of it, we'll have a separate landing page for people and make sure that we can, uh, get folks, whether they're coming in on the engineering side or whether, you know, they're coming private sector, but easiest way to go right now is just go to US Tech Force and we will absolutely make sure that we get you in the queue here.

Fantastic.

Jared, can you reflect on going to space? How did that happen? What does it mean? Would you recommend it for other folks?

I think like a lot of things in my career, I got very lucky. So I certainly, I mean, I definitely can tell you when I was in kindergarten and I said I wanted to grow up and be an astronaut, the chances of that I thought would be, you know, near zero. In life, but got very lucky, you know, kind of, you know, reached out at the right time. I mean, this goes back actually 2008. I went to Baikonur, Kazakhstan to see a Soyuz launch with a lot of the early pioneers of the commercial space industry. And I just kept knocking on the door until it was the right time. And then got lucky to lead, you know, SpaceX's first mission to orbit, Inspiration4, followed up with a developmental program. In September of 2024. We went farther into space. We tested a new spacesuit. We used— we communicated over a beam of light. It was very cool. But I'll tell you that despite the views that I've, that I've seen, the opportunities that I've had in space, I've got the— I got the best job in the world right now.

Yeah. Do you see part of your mission or part of your legacy being not only the economic opportunity on the moon, the national interest mission on the moon, but actually just allowing more humans to experience space?

Is that important? Yeah, well, and they go hand in hand with economic opportunity, right? So I do point out all the time that I actually think one of the most important KPIs is more people living and working in space. Now, for that to happen, I mean, 'cause I'm not a believer there's a huge tourism pipeline in this because it still costs a lot. And it'll never be the safety level of an airliner. So you're still, you know, taking a controlled explosion, you know, 1.8 million pounds of thrust, send somebody to 17,500 miles an hour. That's, you know, and when they get there, odds are really good they're not even gonna feel good. So we gotta crack the code on the orbital economy that some days necessitates more people living and working in space. But if you're asking what I hope the greatest contribution at NASA, because it's not landing on the moon, That's just, that's just luck, honestly, to be here at a time where President Trump gives us the mandate, the resources from the one big beautiful bill, uh, congressional appropriations. Like, you have all the tools to execute on that. Really, in my mind, it's, uh, it's concentrating our resources here at NASA on the needle movers. You know, sometimes you get, you know, mile wide, inch deep on, uh, on, on all the things you're trying to do, but really focus on the things that no one else is capable of doing but but NASA, and then empowering the workforce, like the best and brightest across the nation, get rid of as much needless bureaucracy and things that impede progress. And if you can do that, then things like returning to the moon and building a moon base will be pale in comparison to what we're capable of achieving in the years ahead.

Last question, a bit of a funny one. The chat asked, what's the best watch to bring to space?

I mean, I don't even know if I'm even allowed in this role to endorse a brand.

Am I?

You're gonna get yourself in real trouble here.

Probably not. I guess anyone that keeps the time accurately. Well, thank you so much for coming on the show. Have a great rest of your day.

Great to meet you, Jared, and always good to have you on the show, Scott.

Yeah, we'll talk to you soon. Thanks, Scott. Goodbye. Let me tell you about MongoDB. What's the only thing faster than the AI market? Your business on MongoDB. Don't just build AI, own the data platform that powers it. And let me also tell you about Lambda. Lambda is the superintelligence cloud building AI supercomputers for training and inference that scale from one GPU to hundreds of thousands. It is in the government role. There's so many, there's so many things you can't do. But according to the chat, he has a fantastic watch collection. I was wondering if there was a memento that he brought with him because, you know, the story of the Moon Swatch, you know, this whole— Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Moon Swatch. Watch. Was it gonna be a Rolex? Was it gonna be an Omega? Wound up being Omega. Very, very interesting bit of watch history. We can dive into it some other time.

Breaking news from this morning. What happened? Tucker Carlson's shipment of nicotine was hijacked.

Very dramatic. An attack on one nicotine pouch brand is an attack on us all.

I mean, Tyler asked me this morning.

Tyler was like, hey, oh, oh, you think I've Guilty. I'm not guilty.

You were a little bit late for the gym today, and we thought maybe hijacking a little Fast and Furious. Josh Billingson says stealing a truckload of Tarker Carlson branded nicotine pouches is like the plot to a Zoomer reboot of The Fast and the Furious.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Have you seen the original Fast and Furious, Jordy?

No. It is so embarrassing. I've seen— I've certainly seen trailers and/or seen Any Fast and Furious movies, any of them?

There's so many good ones.

Anyway, in the original Fast and Furious— And there's like 40 of them, right?

Yeah, and there's like 12. And they all have like puns as names. So the original movie is called The Fast and the Furious. Then later they just came out with one that's just called Fast and Furious, which is very confusing. Then they had Fast Five, Too Fast, Too Furious, which is hilarious. I was really hoping that for the 10th movie, they were going to do Fast 10, Your Seatbelts. That would have been a good pun. But they didn't. And then they did the Fate of the Furious, F it. All right, Dad. Ah, there you go. I got you. Anyway, in The Fast and the Furious, they're stealing, I think, DVD players. And so they hijack a truck.

Because they love movies so much?

They love movies. It's insider dealing. Because it's like the movie industry is like, we got to promote the DVD players, make them Oh, you want these DVD players, right?

Well, what else you got, Jordy? Trey says the IWC that Jared wore to space, Jared auctioned off for charity.

Okay, okay. Well, I should have asked a more pointed question about that. Anyway, let me tell you about Vanta. Automate compliance and security. Vanta is the leading AI trust management platform. We have Adam Bry from Skydio. He's the co-founder and CEO in the Restream waiting room.

Welcome to the show, Adam.

What's going on? Great to see you. How are you doing? Great to be here, guys. Thanks so much. Give us the backstory of Skydio. Get us up to speed on Skydio. I'm obviously familiar with the company, but for those who aren't, there's so many places we can go in drones and defense and DJI. There's a million places I want to go, but introduce the company and take us through the shape of the company.

Company right now? So we are the largest US drone manufacturer. Uh, we sell drones to military, we sell drones to public safety and law enforcement, we sell drones to critical infrastructure inspectors, uh, we serve a number of our allies around the world. Yeah. And the big bet that we made when we started the company was on AI and autonomy. So we started in 2014, we've been at it for 12 years. Yeah. So we made very big bets on AI and autonomy when they were, uh, not nearly as obvious as they are today. Um, and we're at a very exciting moment in drones where, where they're really having their moment, and the way people use drones is transitioning from, you know, manually flown to dock-based and remote and autonomous. Um, and we're just seeing incredible stuff happen now with our customers.

I remember Chris Dixon— I, I believe this is the story— showed me a video of a Skydio drone flying around a house and doing sort of a roof inspection. Is that a real business now? Or insurance agency? Like, walk me through some of the less— everyone knows about Ukraine, what's going on there, but like, how are drones actually getting used in the American economy today in an industrial context?

So that is a real use case. We have customers that are doing insurance claims adjustment with drones. So rather than taking out a ladder and climbing up on a roof, you just take a drone out, you push a couple of buttons, it automatically digitizes, inspects the whole thing. The biggest and fastest growing use of our products today is in law enforcement and public safety, where there's just been this huge paradigm shift. So law enforcement has been using drones for like the last 10, 15 years, but historically it was typically a pretty small team. They were manually flown, you know, they would get called out every once in a while if there was an event. But the paradigm shift now is the drone lives in a docking station on the roof of the police department. It can be flown remotely, and when a 911 call comes in, you click one button on a map and the drone will launch itself. It'll fly there,. It'll give you real-time awareness, um, and it just changes outcomes because you can see a crime in progress, you can find a missing person. We— yeah, we've got a good one here. So this is, uh, this is close to home. This is San Francisco Police Department. Okay, this is called Dronas First Responders. So basically, this was a report of a stolen vehicle. They launched the drone, they're following this guy from the air. He doesn't know they're there. So they knew that people would do this— they'd steal license plates after they'd stolen the vehicle. Whoa. They never actually caught anybody in the act, Uh, but with the drone, it's, it's easy. You'll see. So now he's got his own stolen plate.

Oh, he's putting it on the car. Yeah, exactly.

So he, he nicely holds it up so we can read it from the drone.

No way. Uh, this is not an actor. This is a real criminal.

No, this is real. Wow. This happened, uh, this happened last year in San Francisco. So now he's tinting the window. So this, this is bad news, right? This is a stolen vehicle, cold plate of the vehicle, tinting the windows. He's going off to do a bunch of bad stuff, but they know exactly where he is thanks to the drone. They send out a plainclothes unit, they roll a spike strip, so he's got flat tires, and that's basically the end of the story. And this is happening all the time. This is happening like every hour, almost every minute, somewhere across the country, that cops are responding to calls with autonomous drones.

So take me deeper into that example. That feels like a replacement for dispatching a whole helicopter. That feels like there's probably enough bandwidth at a police department to have someone someone sort of manually piloting that, even if there's some autonomous systems that are just keeping you from crashing into the walls. But what level of autonomy are we talking about right now for like the most functional use cases?

So the way that our customers talk about it is force multiplier, and it really is a force multiplier because you can have one person sitting in an op center, they call them real-time information centers, and they can be flying up to 4 drones at once. Because there's a lot of automation built into the software. So you can just click a button on the map and the drone will fly there, or you could click on a car or a person of interest and the drone will start following it. So it's a highly, highly leveraged activity, and it's also just faster to get somewhere. So rather than taking half an hour for an officer to roll out on the ground and, you know, find the address, uh, whatever, it's like 30 seconds for the drone to get there. It can very quickly determine what's happening. And yes, you're right, you do have sort of a remote officer who's flying and controlling this thing, but they're just much more highly leveraged. And so the impact is, is kind of two-sided. One of it, one of the ends is what you saw there in that video where it's like high-stakes scenario, crime in progress, we're going to use the drone to change an outcome. The other end of the spectrum is like the most mundane stuff where somebody reports that like, you know, there's a car parked where it shouldn't be or something and would waste an hour of somebody's time to go check on it. But you just send the drone, you can very quickly see what's going on. And so the law enforcement, I think default expectation in really probably like the next 2 or 3 years is if you call 911, a drone should show up in 60 seconds or less. And this is happening now, you know, San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, Miami, you know, the big cities across the country are all using Skydio.

And yeah, so when a city does, when a city signs up as a customer deploys your product into the field, is there a lag time before you see, like, I'm assuming crime statistics must start to change as criminals realize, hey, I don't have like 15 minutes to kind of get my act together after committing a crime. I have like 120 seconds and then I'm going to be being tracked and it just makes it a lot more complicated. So maybe you end up, you know, getting a real job or something like that instead of committing crime. But what kind of shows up in the data?

Economy booms and criminals get jobs. Crime goes down, employment goes up. Yeah, that would be good. So like San Francisco has been public with this. I think that crime is down like 30%. Auto thefts are down close to 50%. Wow. Yeah. Since they rolled this out. I think, um, and there was, there was actually like an unintentional testimonial from a guy who, you know, who had lived in this world. You might have seen this. I remember we should actually find that clip. Yeah, but he was basically saying like Prime is over in San Francisco because you're screwed, you know, like you steal a car, they're gonna show— the drone's gonna show up in 30 seconds, there's nothing you can do. And it is, you know, it's, it's satisfying for me, and I think it's also, you know, for us as a company and for our customers, there's just an asymmetric advantage. Like when there's a drone following you from above, like there's not a lot you can do. And, you know, I was asking one of our customers— they were showing a video of a retail theft where somebody had lifted $50,000 from a store, or $50,000 worth of goods. And they— the drone got there, it ID'd the person just as they were getting into the getaway car. They followed the getaway car to the person's residence, then just arrested them. I was like, oh man, this is incredible. Can you use this video in court? And the chief said, there's no way this is going to court, right? Like, we've just— we've got this person cold. We've got video evidence of the whole thing from the drone. Yeah. And so it's also just way more efficient. Yeah, way more efficient for the system that you don't have to go through like a long trial.

'Cause the defense attorney shows up and doesn't say, oh, there's a bunch of wiggle room. They just say, okay, they got you dead to rights. Like you should just plead guilty, plead it out and just do the time. You did the crime. Talk to me about what's on an exponential and what's on a linear trajectory. What I mean by that is AI progress, clearly on an exponential. When, if you're trying to read that license plate, I believe that you're gonna get better at reading that license plate twice as better. Like the quality of your AI systems is gonna just double constantly. Probably same thing with your production capacity. You're probably exponentially growing the amount of drones that you can make, but battery technology, range, flight time, security, like what is still not on an exponential?

It's a really interesting question. So the way that I kind of think about it is, uh, we have a similar kind of dynamic to the self-driving car companies where we're building this really hardcore real-world technology that has to deal with the full complexity of what the real world can present— different weather conditions, different operating paradigms, different visual lighting conditions. And a lot of these, you know, AI is on an exponential curve, but I also kind of think the real world is exponentially complex. And so there's, there's this very, very hard real-world grind that you have to go through to make this stuff work reliably and scalably. I mean, you can kind of think of our drones like self-driving cars that fly, um, and yeah, uh, that, that is the hardest piece. And, and, you know, we've been at it now for 12 years, and, and there's really unfortunately no shortcuts. I mean, it's, it's taken us a long time, millions of flights, tens of thousands of drones we've built to learn a lot of these hard real-world lessons and then incorporate them into our hardware and software. To make the system reliable. So we're benefiting now. You know, we made big bets on computer vision that turned out to be right. We're on a great exponential there. But the visual complexity of the real world is also exponentially high.

Yeah. Walk us through the importance of like dock-based drones. When did you start building docks? Because I imagine you started with drones and then eventually realized that you need to actually sell the infrastructure, that there is not— there there aren't just going to be skyports with charging infrastructure that just pop up everywhere. So walk us through what we're seeing in that video and sort of the rollout here.

Yeah, so that's a dock in action. So vertical integration, there's different ways you can approach it. I think I'm a big believer in vertical integration, like building the dock and the drone and writing all the software that runs on it and writing all the cloud interfaces to manage it. Like, all these pieces need to work together to deliver kind of this solution. Like, at the end of the day, we're kind of a boring enterprise solution to our customers. There's just a bunch of cutting-edge robotics under the hood to make it possible. Um, and it's, it's been a journey to get to where we are. We, we were talking about docks when we started the company in 2014. One of the things I believe is you got to have, for these really big technology plays, you kind of need, you need an incremental business path along with the incremental technology. Like, I think the biggest successes— Tesla did this, SpaceX did this— you've got the grand vision, but you've got to find ways to make incremental technical progress and unlock incremental business value along the way. So building the drone without the dock is an obvious example of that. I think in 2019 is when we really like went all in and said like, we think these enterprise markets are ready. We think the dock is the way to serve them. So it's been a 6, 7-year path from then to now have our products really being produced at scale, reliably working at scale. And, you know, there's a lot of little problems, little and big problems you got to solve along the way to make it work. Yeah.

Talk a little bit about privacy, surveillance, regulation. Can you spy on me? Can the government spy on me? I love the idea of finding my car if it gets stolen, but I'm a little bit hesitant about having a drone follow me around everywhere for no reason, just in case I go 2 miles an hour over the speed limit. Like, how do you grapple with those trade-offs, the regulation, how you think the government uses this technology?

So I think these are civilizational questions, and I think ultimately they are like policy and regulatory questions. This is a hot topic today, like what's the role of companies and how their government customers use it. So, you know, we have a voice in this conversation. We have a strong posture towards, I think transparency is basically the key, especially in law enforcement, because if the police are transparent and if people see, you guys hear me?

I might just lock my AirPods. No, no, we're good. If you take them out, you can probably just switch to the computer audio.

Yeah, we can hear the hum of your, your massive facility behind you.

Workshop makes it sound like it's like, like Santa's workshop. It is. It's a manufacturing facility, Jordy.

They have the biggest drone factory in the US. Yeah, we can hear you now. Okay, great. You're good. Uh, yeah, so I think transparency is the key because, you know, if people see what law enforcement is doing with drones, they can form their own assessment, and there's natural accountability built in there. Yeah. And, and really one of the, like, The things that I think our customers are doing an amazing job of is being maximally transparent on this stuff. Like, when an agency launches their drone as first responder program, they're not trying to like hide it in the back room. They're like hosting a press event, they're explaining what they're doing, they're showing videos like the one that I just showed you. And we actually have— we do a bunch of transparency features in the product. So we have a transparency portal, um, that basically makes it easy to— for an agency to publish all the flying they're doing. And citizens use this. You can log on And you can see like, oh, were they following me around to see if I was going through miles an hour speed limit? No, they were like busting somebody who stole my car.

Yeah.

And this is kind of a side, but one of the things that I've come to appreciate working with law enforcement is there's very high direct accountability there because these police chiefs and sheriffs, I mean, they are either directly elected themselves or they're downstream from an elected official. And if something goes wrong, they're on the nightly news explaining it and they don't want to be there. And so they take this stuff really seriously. So it's not to say that there aren't legitimate concerns and that everything's going to be perfect hunky-dory, but I think the feedback mechanisms are in place to get us to a healthy place. And the safety benefits are just incredible.

Like when people see like the one that I showed, they tend to get it. Yeah, I've been pretty, I've been pretty satisfied with the way local jurisdictions have been able to decide as a small community whether or not they want license plate readers or whether or not they want, you know, doorbell cameras to be accessible. And it hasn't been something that's been forced upon every community or banned from every community. It's been on a city-by-city basis. And that feels like the correct formulation structure based on what we know we're entitled to as Americans. It's exactly right.

Yeah. Like, sorry, just on that note, like, when you're selling to public safety and law enforcement, it's basically community sale. Like, all this stuff goes before city council before it gets approved. Yeah. And, and they're the ultimate people that are carrying the purse strings. So that's— agency knows that, we know that, and that's part of the test.

They're, they're our ultimate customer.

We gotta talk about DJI. DJI got added to the FCC's covered list in the end of last year.

How?

Well, they just—

long time over— long— just had a cool feature where I guess like, oh, that's another story, any of them.

So like, if I have one, like, yeah, we had the guy, we had the guy that that hacked, that basically bypassed his way into being able to control and look at the video feed of 7,000 DJs.

He found the back door. Yeah, he found the back door. And then he hacked into a vacuum and drove it to the back door of the house that he was in.

Anyways. You know, sometimes I say that Chinese drones come pre-hacked, but no hacking required.

But yeah, but how is the FCC's action impacted your business? I'm assuming that's something that you felt would have been an obvious decision for the government for many years prior. But give us the history.

Yeah, look, I think that part of what's happened here is like when we started the company in 2014, drones seemed like toys. You know, they were like toys. People flew them and they've been through this evolution from like toys to like useful tools for expert operators to now, I would argue, like critical infrastructure. And then the conflict in Ukraine, the war in Ukraine, I think just demonstrated to everybody how important these small light drones are from a national security perspective. So I think there's been kind of just increasing awareness over the last 10 years that this is critical technology with, with very high national security stakes. And, you know, from our perspective as a company, like our goal is just to win on the strengths of the product and the tech. And I think the shift to dock and autonomy really plays to our strengths both as a company and as a country. And you can see this in the market like historically DJI had like 70, 80% market share in, in law enforcement and in the dock world. They're still our number one competitor. So like Flock Safety is effectively a DJI reseller. Like all of their drone as first responders work is done with DJI drones today. But the scoreboard is flipped. You know, we are, we are winning the majority of these deals even before the FCC action on the strengths of the product and the tech because it's just sort of a different recipe. It's similar, but it's a different recipe. Deliver the solution. Price— people are a little bit price sensitive because the value is so high. You know, price is probably DJI's greatest strength. So look, from our standpoint, like, our goal is just to have the best products and tech in the world. We certainly benefit from policy and regulatory tailwinds. And, you know, I'm, I'm not neutral on this. We have a business stake in it. But I think there's a lot of reasons why we want a domestic drone industry and why that's important for our national security. I mean, this stuff It's critical for military, it's critical for infrastructure, it's critical for public safety. And so it's exciting to see like huge momentum now towards domestic industry and domestic manufacturing. But ultimately the only stable long-term solution is to have the best products and tech designed and built right here in the US. And that's what we're doing. That's what the factory behind me is doing. I think this new chapter of drones as infrastructure is a huge opportunity for us as a country and one that we have.

How are you thinking about scaling manufacturing capacity over the next, decade?

I mean, we're all in on it. It's, it's a fun problem. I mean, it's just, it's a, it's all engineering of some flavor. It's a different set of engineering problems. So we're adding more and more automation to our factory. We're investing in the systems and processes. I think that the, like, the combination of AI and robotics changes the way manufacturing works. Like, it's possible to automate more stuff. It's possible to have what happens on our factory floor be more software defined.. I think that's, you know, that's going to be more to our advantage versus just pure low-cost labor. Like, that's not our strength in the US. We have phenomenal workers, I mean, drones, but it's, you know, it's a different, it's a different labor equation than it is in Asia. So, you know, we're investing very heavily in like the software aspects of manufacturing and the automation around it. And it's, it's part of our core identity as, as a company. And we're continuing to scale. So, you know, we're going to 80,000 square foot facility now. A year from now, we'll probably be in a 250,000 square foot facility.

It's a huge facility. Huge facility. Congratulations, and thank you for taking the time to come chat with us. Uh, good luck with the team. Yeah, great, great to get that. And I mean, I, I've, I think I met you over a decade ago So a true overnight success.

Overnight success. Uh, come back on when you have news, Adam. Yeah, we'll talk to you soon. Really, really cool to get the update. Have a good one.

Cheers. Thanks, guys. Let me tell you about Cognition. They're the makers of Devin, the AI software engineer. Crush your backlog with your personal AI engineering team. And you know what? I got another ad read. Finn.ai, the number one AI agent for customer service. Did I It didn't trigger. Finn.ai is the number one AI agent for customer service. If you want AI to handle your customer support, go to Finn.ai. And without further ado, we have Matteo from Eight Sleep back on the stream, his fifth, sixth time. We can't stop talking to this guy. How you doing, Matteo? Rested.

Good to see you. Oh, good.

Great to see you guys. I have absolutely loved my Eight Sleep. I see. I continue to sleep on it. Uh, negative 10 on my side, plus 10 on my wife's side. Uh, my 5-year-old has a feature request. He says, where's my zone? I sleep in the middle. And we're like, you don't sleep in the middle, you sleep in your bed. But I'm sure you get that all the time. But how are you?

Oh, good.

How are you doing, guys?

Thank you.

We're fantastic.

Really happy to be back here with some good news. Always great to have you.

Give us, give us the news. What happened? We just announced a new round. We raised another $50 million at $1.5 billion.

Congratulations.

And who'd you raise it from?

From Tether Investments. So it's the Tether company.

They are doubling down on AI and health, and I have been friends Paolo, the CEO, for a long time, he's a really big fan of us. And very quickly he said, okay, how can I accelerate you guys even more?

And we were able to close the deal very quickly. Amazing. Give us an update on the business overall, everything you're focused on this year, all that good stuff.

Yeah. Well, the best part is in in between now and 2025, we raised twice, right, including this round. But the best part is we were profitable. So that's the part I love the most. We didn't need money. But, you know, when you have the right investors that they can really push you further, it makes sense from a strategic standpoint. So we were profitable. We launched 3 products last year. Now we sell in 34 countries. We're going to launch in China in a matter of a few months. So we'll be in China as well. And then we'll launch Brazil as well this year. More hardware products coming. As I say, strong unit economics, a lot of people loving us.

We just need to keep shipping. What actually goes into an international launch for Eight Sleep for 2026? Yeah, I mean, like, you know, it's a heavy product. It's not the easiest thing to ship in the world. You know, some brands would have entered Brazil or China a long time ago, but you guys are going kind of country by country, clearly focused much more strategically, maybe.

Yeah, we almost wanted to prove the strategy even at the board level. So we started with Canada, and then from Canada we went to Australia, and then Europe, then UK, then we launched Middle East, which was super successful. Then we launched Mexico, which was super successful. And then Saudi Arabia, Singapore. Now the next big bet is China, which will happen in around April. And then Brazil. Brazil is quite complicated. The interesting thing is we sell everything direct to consumer, so we don't use distributors or we don't go into any retail store. So we control everything. That makes things faster, but at the same time, there are still a lot of requirements also in terms of approval as a consumer electronics device. So usually that is the thing that requires the longest and then the supply chain and the shipping.

But that is honestly fairly trivial. What key kind of health trends are you tracking?

I'm sure you would—

Are peptides changing sleep at all? Yeah, I think there is one peptide that specifically targets sleep.

I'm just curious.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So we are running some clinical studies, but yes, there are a couple that seem promising for that. And then there are also some drugs about sleep apnea that seem really effective. They were not approved yet, but there are certain pills that It seems they can really help with the mitigation of sleep apnea. And then we filed for FDA approval, both for detection and mitigation of sleep apnea. We invented a new technology that mitigates sleep apnea without you wearing anything. I think it could be a massive home run for the business. Obviously, we need to get to the finish line and prove it and get the FDA approval. But if that happens, it would be a game changer for millions of people. You know, 40% of people with sleep apnea, they don't even know they have it. And this is a life-threatening disease for certain people. And I think we have a really nice solution that is extremely convenient, seamless, that will help millions or billions of people.

Billions. 93 last night.

Oh, how'd I do? 95% quality, 100% consistency, 7 hours and 18 minutes.

Not too bad.

Not too bad.

91. Oh, let's go. But doesn't it— but doesn't it adjust? Isn't it possible that I got a better night's sleep than Jon last night, but, but he on average gets worse sleep, and so he put up an okay? A good night for him. Jon's best night's sleep is a nightmare for me.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's true. But, but, but take me through. What does it take to get me to 100? Uh, I know that there are are other pieces of the puzzle. I have the mattress cover, of course, but should I be taking supplements? What else do you have for me that could get me to 100 more regularly?

Yeah, so I would think in 3 dimensions. On one side, there is consistency, so going to bed at the same time, waking up at the same time.

I'm very consistent about drinking like a full bottle of wine before bed.

Is that good?

Perfect.

That's not going to help. With your score, with your HRV? I just, I just black out and then I wake up and I'm like, I fell asleep. It was effective.

It made me sleepy.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I give a presentation to a bunch of entrepreneurs and some of them started challenging me and say, yeah, I know that you keep saying this thing of the alcohol, but every time I have a couple of drinks, I pass out. So at the end, I believe alcohol is is not bad for me. And I say, look, man, we can look at your data.

You can look at your data. Yeah, I got the data. That's hilarious. But statistically, it's not good. Yes. But, but on, on the supplement side, what's interesting? Melatonin. Give me kind of sort of your thesis about, uh, the other things that impact sleep.

Yeah, honestly, the one that works, uh, is, is well known, is melatonin. Yeah. The problem with melatonin is you cannot keep taking melatonin for too long. That's right. So usually we have run a bunch of studies, and what we have seen is you should keep it below 0.5 milligrams. Okay. That otherwise it creates dependency. Then when you're traveling or you want to adjust for leg, you can go up to 2 milligrams, something like that, but you should stop after 3, 4 days.

Yeah, not much.

Yeah. Well, instead, a lot of people take 3 to 5 milligrams every single night forever.

Yeah.

And then they build a tolerance and they don't get out of it. Like, you know, you can't just drink caffeine every single day and expect to have the same results.

Exactly. Then some people report some benefit with magnesium, ashwagandha, and some of that, but usually the benefits are fairly minimal. Right now, the only one that is very well proven to work is melatonin.

Yeah. Uh, how many hours of sleep data do you have? Me? Yeah. At Eight Sleep, how much data are you studying these days? Oh, we crossed billions of nights.

Oh, it's billions of nights.

I just wanted to hit the mic.

You just wanted an excuse.

The interesting part is what excites me is because we sell in 34 countries now, it's so interesting, right, to really think that we are powering There's people across the globe, right? Different genders, there's not different everything.

What can you tell us? What country sleeps best?

Australia.

Australia sleeps best. There is a specific place in Australia on the coast where they sleep like babies. They're like unbeatable. That's amazing. Americans don't sleep very well and they're going to skim off.

What's the thesis there? They're just by there hanging out at the beach.

They're super relaxed.

Yeah, they're lazy.

Yeah, yeah, I think so. It's probably just the local culture where they're still active, but they're probably way more consistent and they have more time for sleep. And then the other interesting thing is sometimes you see weird spikes in a good or bad direction for sleep. We published a long time ago how sleep dipped during the election.

Election Day, or there are all these studies about when, you know, you change the time, uh, uh, forward or backward, or daylight savings time, or probably like the Super Bowl.

There's a whole bunch of different dates. Super Bowl, all that kind of thing.

So it's, yeah, it's pretty funny. And video earnings, probably people losing sleep.

Yeah.

Even after COVID, a lot of things changed. People started sleeping way longer after COVID. Particularly during COVID they were sleeping like an hour longer on average per night, which was pretty impressive.

And still today you see the difference across even the different days of the week. Wow. Yeah, that's impressive. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to come chat with us.

Congratulations on the round.

Congrats on the new round. And we will talk to you soon, Matteo.

Yeah, it's great to see you as always.

Thank you, guys. Goodbye. Let me tell you about CrowdStrike. Your business is AI, their business is securing It, CrowdStrike secures AI and stops breaches. And let me also tell you about Cisco, critical infrastructure for the AI era, unlock seamless real-time experiences and new value with Cisco. And without further ado, we have Dylan Rolnick from Noose Research coming on the show. What's going on?

Dylan, how you doing? Yo, great to meet you guys. Big fan of your show.

Happy to be here. Thank you so much for taking the time. Since it is the first time on the show, please introduce yourself and what you you're working on.

Yeah, I'm Dylan Rolnick.

Like you said, I'm the COO. And broadly, I would say News Research is working on being a super internet-native AI lab.

Okay.

Essentially just focused on bringing open source to the forefront and all we can for open source AI.

Yeah. Talk about agents, harnesses, conductors, orchestration. How do you envision this year playing out for how people, your customers, your users will interface with AI?

Yeah, well, so I mean, I think this year has already been pretty heavy on agents. We did our, I mean, Claw, right? OpenClaw, ours. We just put out Hermes Agent. So I think people are just starting to get used to a kind of different way to interact with AI that maybe they're not as used to that's like blowing people's minds. So if you're like super close to it, some of this stuff might not be that shocking, but I think You saw with how things became very popular, very fast, people getting a first glimpse of like putting an AI out there, kind of like letting it do its thing and coming back to something that's finished or done, like a work product.

Yeah, maybe Keem quit the rap game.

Yeah. Focus on OpenAI.

Maybe Keem is focused.

Maybe it's Keem, I don't know.

He's getting Mac, he's stacking Mac Minis.

I did, yeah.

It's crazy.

Yeah, we gotta convert him and that'd be a big win for us.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm a little ridiculous.

So anyways, yeah, I mean like we think it's super powerful. We put out our Hermes agent, like I said, sort of an alternative kind of, you know, we view it as sort of taking the best of what you would see in a coding agent and what you would see in something like OpenClaw. And then we added a bunch of capability that's important to our own work to advance the stuff that we're doing. Because like, if anyone's going to use an agent to advance their work, like, it sure as hell is going to be us first.

So, okay. So, uh, when you say advance, you say advance work, but it feels like there's still some consumer angle? Like, what are the textbook use cases that you're seeing?

We're just starting to get some feedback on what people are doing, but I think, you know, from the professional standpoint, it's like, uh, people want a way to just have a task be put out there and they come back. Like, they're messaging with it on Telegram. They're saying like, I'd like for you to do some research for me, and then by the time I get back to my desk, I'm able to look over that kind of thing. Sure. But from our vantage, we put in like, you know, we traditionally made our name basically doing post-training. Okay. So all the tools that we've been using, we've been trying to feed into that tool so that this thing could actually help us advance that goal as well.

So are you building on top of open-source pre-trains then?

Yeah. Yeah.

So what we did to initially gain some popularity was like it was Llama was putting out base models. We fine-tuned those into something that we thought would be like something the market would want. Which is why I'm so excited about the agent stuff, because like we were kind of sitting there being like, okay, here's what we think is like a gap between what models are doing presently and what we could add to the fine-tune world. But once you actually have an agent out there that's like touching people and doing like economic work and helping, you get more feedback as to what it is that you actually need to post-train. So for us, it's kind of like, now we have this thing out there, can we shape an open-source model into something that makes the best out of this harness? And is cheaper or like better across some vectors.

How are you thinking about go-to-market? The open source piece is interesting, but what are the other levers to get people to adopt the product?

Yeah, I think just bludgeoning people with how you can use this thing is important. I think there's a huge gap between what people know about AI and what AI can actually do. Like even some of the people that I consider some of the most like savvy, non-technical users of AI are continually blown away by like what Hermes Agent can do. And Hermes Agent again is just like a harness on other people's agents. It's not even like the compounding effect yet. Sure. So I think like making that super easy for people to dive into and get—

So, so yeah, what are you actually like pitching them? Because like, you know, ChatGPT comes out, everyone's like, this can do your homework. Like this will replace like Wikipedia. This will replace Google search. Pitch, right? Like, go here and instead of just typing, you know, tell me the history of the Roman Empire in Google, you just do that in ChatGPT and you get something that looks different and is better in a bunch of different ways. Like, what's your pitch for like the first prompt that they should fire off?

Oh, that's a good one. I think the— well, so the first part of the pitch is like, I think open source is crucial for a lot of people and they might not realize it yet, but I think one of the things I hear from folks that use any agent is like, I'm willing to spend a couple bucks, but maybe not like, you know, $100 a day. Yeah. And Claude, while extraordinarily capable, is expensive because it's just like omni-capable. So I think the ability to like hone in on the agentic capability at a cheaper price point is definitely part of the pitch. And I would say just like get in there, figure out what you spend the most amount of your time doing that you don't want to do and ask Hermes Agent to solve that for you.

I think we need some more specificity if we want to pitch these people. It's tough. Yeah. People need a killer use case. They need their hands held. And there's certainly opportunity out there. But hopefully, you know, this will evolve. I'm always taken by that example of Midjourney where if you gave, David Holes of Midjourney said, if you give people like a blank box and just say, prompt whatever they want to prompt. They will just type dog and they'll just get like a picture of a dog and they're like, I could have gotten a dog on Google Images. Like, this doesn't do anything special. But when they went into Midjourney, they saw everyone else prompting. They say space dog on Mars with a rocket ship, blah, blah, blah. And then they would, they would remix and enjoy. How are you thinking about bringing the different community together? The different Hermes agent? I was on Instagram. And I saw someone who used OpenClaw— this is just like a family friend— but used OpenClaw to build a new photo album piece of software to collect photos from all of their different family resources. So they have some in Google Drive, they have the grandparents use, you know, some Microsoft product, and they wanted something that would synthesize all of this together into one, you know, central place, tag them I'll do all of this. And I was like, that's an interesting use case. I like that she built that. And that's something that I could maybe say, hey, maybe I want that. And maybe that becomes a product one day. But how are you thinking about bringing the community together?

Yeah, that's a good point. So here's what I'll say is when we put this out, we were kind of thinking of it as like a gift to the community. Like we are very open source focused. Like I said, like, let's just see what people can make use of this thing. And we're probably in that discovery phase of like, What is it that people are doing? So we had a bunch of immediately cool stuff that I thought came out, and then we're putting together a hackathon right now to try to get more of that. Like you want to see, like you said, you want to be inspired by what other people are doing. So we're putting together a hackathon that's going to start tomorrow online. Let everyone do— I think we're in play mode, like do the coolest stuff that you can and let's figure out what exactly hits.

Yeah. I mean, it is like the best time to go to a hackathon, to host a hackathon. We are truly at this incredible moment where the tools are so much better.

I would use the agent to figure out homes in my area that look like castles because I'm very inspired by our somewhat of a castle.

This is a cool building. Yeah, I'm in a castle. But yeah, I mean, you might not want to give that away because that could be a hit for the hackathon.

You know Casey Handmer, Terraform? He operates his business out of a castle in in Burbank.

It's amazing. It makes you feel very secure and strong.

It has like true turrets. It was built— it's not really like a defensible castle. I think it was built more for maybe just a crazy person or something, maybe for the film industry or something. But it looks fantastic. And your office looks fantastic as well.

Congratulations on all the success. Yeah, shoot us a note on who ends up winning the hackathon.

Yeah, we'll cover it. That'd be awesome. I'm sure you'll be posting about it as well.

Appreciate that.

Dylan, have a great rest of your day.

Great to meet you, Dylan.

We'll talk to you soon.

Great to meet you guys. Have a great one. Goodbye. Let me tell you about Public.com. Investing for those that take it seriously. They have stocks, options, bonds, crypto, treasuries, and more with great customer service. Did you know, according to Tyler Cowen, this is how people talk? According to Sardius, brutally sweater mogged by boomer foid doom slop maxing on change gooning your sweater is is not ready for. That sentence, it's like it's completely escaped velocity to the point where I don't even understand it and I follow most of this lingo pretty closely. But I appreciate that Tyler Cowen has just reflected on the fact that the vernacular is fully changing on the Internet and it is in many ways indistinguishable or indecipherable. It is a mess. It is its own form of slop, the looks-maxing lingo. The A&W CEO has joined the burger wars. This just continues and continues. I mean, I guess it's free press if you're in the fast food industry. I didn't know that A&W was even a store. I didn't know that they sold burgers. I thought they just had root beer, A&W.

Have you ever been to an A&W, Jordy?

Never heard of it.

Never heard of it.

Never ever heard of it. You mentioned it, but here is the picture with beautiful lighting. Baby Keem says, "3 more to go, 2 Sparks on the way." Is that the Nvidia Spark? DJX Spark? DJX Spark? That's an expensive computer, right? He's really wiring everything up. 10,000 likes. He's having a great time. I appreciate that that Baby Keem is having a good time in the open source AI agent world.

Sudo says developers are cooked. I vibe coded a worse version of an existing product in 4 weeks with serious security flaws.

Yeah, it's a wild time. Be careful out there. The other interesting thing that's going on is like there's new data on serious, serious traffic declines across tech publications. This is from Danny Crichton. It says, no discussion of tech media can get past this basic traffic fact: in the AI world, Google and social no longer refer traffic, which means that the vast majority of readers just never find you in the first place. This is, of course, a reaction to Trey Stephens' proposal that maybe he should buy Wired. And it's unclear if he's just having fun, but there's been a call from the tech community to like bring back the Wired we read in the magazines as a kid. You know, it used to be so techno-optimistic. Now it's this hypercritical, maybe semi-political outlet. But what Danny is pointing to is that these publications have seen just in the last 2 years since 2024, traffic declines have between 30% and 97% for digital trends. The interesting one there, I think it was of course Wired. In November of 2024, Wired was putting up 7 million, 7.7 million views in traffic. Now it's down at 2.9. And there's another one on here. I had no idea that Mashable was still so big. Mashable has actually done pretty well. 16 million 2 years ago. Now it's down at 11 million. Not too bad. But ZDNet, that was the website where I would go. And The Verge is on here too.

5 million views down at 7 million views. Yeah, I wonder how much of this is due to AI overviews. And Google search results now are more ads, more paid links.

Than organic links. There's a lot of that. Most certainly.

There's a lot of—

But I think the bigger issue is— Some hackers get screenshotted and shared on X.

That's pretty new too.

Yeah.

The screenshot. There's 100— for each one of these publications, there's 100 or 1,000 people that will take whatever news and reconstitute it and just make it more socially native. So I would imagine that the stories these companies are telling are getting a similar amount of impressions overall.

That's just not happening Potentially more because a lot of the stories that they write about, at least the ones that do scoops, are more interesting than ever. The Verge has had some great reporting. Alex Heath, who formerly worked at The Verge and is now writing at Sources.News, his Substack, says more viscerally these traffic declines represent directionally aligned revenue declines. And so if you see a publication that's down 85% in traffic, they might be down 85% in revenue, and that is going to completely change the way they think about the business, both from a staffing perspective, but also from a content and editorial perspective. Because if you are seeing traffic decline in one niche or one category, you might need to go viral by doing a listicle or doing something that doesn't feel like your roots. Well, the roots have been dug up in some ways on some publications.

We're not seeing a decline in VC podcast viewership. That's true.

That's true.

There are a number of VC podcasts that are racking up a million views for interviews with Series A or Series B founders.

Very, very impressive numbers. There are some allegations. A lot of people think that technology is niche sometimes. Series A founder that you haven't heard on, they can't attract a million people to sit down and watch them on Zoom talk about their business for an hour. But apparently they can, and many venture capital firms have showed us that it's possible. You do have to pay the people to watch, and the views might be a little low quality, but if you pay the viewers— And people won't comment. If you pay, yeah, they won't comment. That's an extra bill you got to pay, and it's very uncomfortable.

Clear why they aren't buying comments, because if you're buying the views, just buy the comments too. No, no, no. The reason is that they are running paid traffic on Meta at their own YouTube videos. Oh, is that what's going on? That is how they're getting the views. The Meta ads, as of a couple days ago, were public, so you could see them. They're just like running—

If you're on Instagram, you'll get an ad for a podcast, and then people will click through.

That was on Meta?

Because apparently— And Google. Because you can actually just run ads for your content on YouTube. And then you get people who are in YouTube to click on that content. Now, are they less likely to comment? Absolutely. Like the example on the right is Dwarkash. He got a million views and it had 4,700 comments. I went back and checked some of my videos just to kind of know like what is the correct ratio. And if I got a video with like a couple hundred thousand views, like there were probably 1,000 comments on there. For a variety of reasons. Also just people saying like, when the real fans show up, they say like, first, second, oh yeah, still watching in 2026. You know, people will just do this. And very, very odd just to go by views because it doesn't create a lot of value and it sort of sets you up for this type of dunk, although Matt Turk is being nice and not calling out the particular podcast that did this. Max Ference, who runs— he's the general manager of the Dwarkesh Patel podcast, says, deep down, I know these are pictures of screens, but it really looks like you printed these out, marked them up with a pen and highlighter, and then took the photos. Max is so funny. And he had a bunch of things. He says— he was quoting this and said, you have no idea how long it takes me to write 4,783 comments like he's, you know, responsible because of course he's not faking the numbers at that scale.

That's not what's happening. What else? Kyle Corbett says is highlighting some news. The New York legislature is rapidly pushing through a 2025 bill that would prohibit LLMs from providing substantive legal analysis or advice in New York.

Hmm.

And seems that LLMs could still provide substantive help to lawyers under this bill as written. Yeah. Consumers, however, would be stuck with the chatbot refusing to answer their legal questions. So again, this just seems bad. The entire point of LLMs and AI is to give intelligence to anyone, right? Like the fact that an individual can get the equivalent of 5 hours of legal work in a single prompt by like uploading a contract is very good for consumers. I don't even know how bad it'll be for lawyers, especially given that at least right now, even if I could generate entire legal docs, I still want a lawyer to play a part in it. But again, Kyle Corbett says, I sold my company last year. GPT-5 Pro was at least as valuable in in that negotiation as our attorneys who billed us $450,000.

This is a terrible law. The Primeagen is chiming in. I saw him on a podcast recently and I just really liked the way this guy talks. I've been getting a bunch of his Instagram Reels too. He's a great streamer. Responding to former guests of the show, Gergely Orosz, Says things that were not on my bingo card. One, Anthropic marked as a US supply chain risk by the government, same as Huawei. Again, that hasn't actually happened, but it's predicted. Two, Claude going viral across non-tech people as a result. Number one on the App Store. Three, mass ChatGPT cancellations thanks to OpenAI becoming the government AI supplier. And Prime Agent says then they will release 5.4. Everyone will say AGI and forget all about last, the last week and this week. That's why it's so fun to cover AI because everything changes every 2 weeks. It's not that something big is happening. Like I was reflecting, someone was asking me about that something big is happening essay and I was like, well, actually they predicted that in March it would be like April of 2020 with regard to COVID and the fact that The fact that we're just having this normal conversation and walking down the street normally and things are pretty much the same sort of negates that, but it's still worth paying attention to. And I don't know, I'm excited for the next model shift.

There's some amazing— Which I think is, our theory was they said GPT 5.4 sooner than you think.

No, no, no, no, no. It's GPT 5.XXXtreme. No. Citrini chimed in. It said the next AI model will have extreme reasoning, probably trying to jump to the top of the Meter chart. I would imagine that's sort of the benchmark that a lot of people are tracking. So you got to do a lot of reasoning tokens, a lot of, a lot of high, high, long context reasoning.

But whatever they call it, it'll be fun to test drive and see what happens. There is a new company selling a device called Spectre, the first smart device to stop unwanted audio recordings. And this post went super viral. People are pretty excited about it. Someone else was highlighting that there's hundreds of products on Alibaba and in spy shops that sell these sort of portable audio journals.

There's also a company that sells to doctors that's for transcription. Remember we talked about it? And the company's printing like $100 million, and they just like have a very niche sort of boring use case.

That's for recording.

This is for jamming.

Oh, this is for jamming. This is for people like TJ Parker who don't want to be recorded.

Because there's both of these. Anthony Pompliano said, we have to live in a simulation if both these companies launch on the same day. And it's one company launching a note-taker for real-world meetings. It records everything around you. And then on the same day— they launched Spectre— a different company launched Spectre One, the first smart device to stop unwanted audio recording. So the battle for the sound waves is well, well underway. But yes, so this other post that you said is sort of putting Spectre One in the truth zone on the first smart device to stop unwanted audio recordings, talking about the idea that there are mic jammers elsewhere, and these are available if you want them. But they certainly haven't been marketed, and a lot of people were unaware of them until this product launch. So, you know, is distribution important here? Is distribution always important? Yes, probably. And so good luck to them. Good luck to the ongoing cold war between the recording and the jam. It's gonna be like just a crazy, crazy battle. Let me tell you about Plaid. Plaid powers the apps you use to spend, save, borrow, and invest, securely connecting bank accounts to move money, fight fraud, and improve lending now with AI.

Accenture is buying DownDetector. I saw this. $1.2 billion. Why?

There must be something to this business. They said as part of a deal, a $1.2 billion deal. So is it possible Is it possible that Down Detector is owned by another company and Down Detector just sort of came along for the ride? Because I can't imagine that Down Detector is worth $1.2 billion. I mean, respect to everyone who runs that site. It's certainly valuable. But that seems like a lot for what they do. But I don't know. I mean, I could imagine this having business value if you've implemented a system and you want to make sure that the system that that you implemented as Accenture stays up, having the infrastructure to track uptime is valuable. A lot of companies are struggling with uptime. Doug O'Loughlin was talking about GitHub's uptime. There's been a lot of people posting about Cloud having patchy response times because of the surge in demand. This is clearly something businesses care about because every dollar, every minute of uptime is dollars, is money.

In the age of vibe coding, every product is going to be going down so much. Oh, yes. Accenture's helping companies unlock AI, and they're like, wow, this stuff's going to be pretty bad. Yeah. Bull market for Down Detector. Julian Weisser interviewed a founder named Ben Serra. He's building a company called Pulsia. They've gotten to $1.5 million of ARR in 2 weeks with zero human teammates. Very, very cool progress. But Zareem says, why is the company named AI Slop backwards?

Is that intentional? Is that a nod?

Or did they just get lucky? No, I think it's maybe a happy accident. That's so funny. Really, really good. Donald Trump is— at a roundtable, I believe, on energy, on the data center buildout. And Donald Trump, according to Mike Isaac, wistfully at the tech roundtable speaking about OpenAI's Brad Lightcap. Brad, so young.

Look at how young. Oh, that's so funny. Brad Lightcap does look very young. Very youthful. He has aged very, very, very youthful. Businessman, also an absolute dog who's been on a generational run and done fantastic things throughout his career. So congrats to him. But this is so, so funny. What a weird— that's a total like record scratch freeze frame. Yep, that's me. Here's how I wound up at a White House roundtable with the president of the United States saying, so young. Look at how young.

Thanks, Mike, for a good thing. That place to close out the show. Brian Johnson walked at a fashion show at Paris Fashion Week. A Capital says, from immortal unk to runway unk.

Let's give it up for Brian Johnson walking the runway. That's a bucket list item. I don't know if it's on my bucket list, but I'm certainly glad that he had the opportunity.

Congrats to— the only thing is it kind of looks like a futuristic funeral, like a sci-fi.

Like, it doesn't have— it does feel fairly comfortable though. I like the functionality, but he is looking absolutely— he's looking jacked. That is true. He is looking very strong. Uh, this is some mass surveillance going on.

They're surveilling his mass.

That really is This is mass surveillance. And whether you like it or not, they're going to be taking a video of you when you're looking massive and putting it on the internet and going viral. Well, thank you for watching the show today. We will see you tomorrow at 11 a.m. sharp Pacific time. Leave us 5 stars on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Sign up for our newsletter at tbpi.com. Give us a follow on LinkedIn. I have been doing a magic trick recently where I will post on LinkedIn while I'm live. It's a certain hand signal. You have to figure out how it's happening. How can Jon possibly be live on the internet on this stream and simultaneously posting content, great content, some of the best content on LinkedIn at the same time? It's a mystery.

No one understands how I can do it.

And right now over at LinkedIn, it's— No, wait, no, no, no, that's not true. I got 100,000 impressions. It's working. It's starting to work. Figured it out that on LinkedIn we are going to be focused more on behind the scenes storytelling about how we think about media, how we think about the business of TVPN. That has been what's resonating. And so we're going to be focused a little bit more on that as opposed to some of the tech analysis that we do on X and here on the show, some of the interview clips. The interview clips just aren't really flying there like they do on YouTube and X and Instagram. So We're starting to find our audience there. Give us a follow on LinkedIn.

We'd love to hang out with you there. Anyway. And we hope you have a wonderful evening. We'll be back tomorrow for a big show.

Goodbye.