Category: Uncategorized

  • Gavin Newsom, The Next President Of The US? “America’s At Breaking Point & Trump’s Playing Dangerous Games!”

    中文
    Tiếng Việt
    AI transcript
    0:00:01 Epstein and Trump were close.
    0:00:02 Sorry, Donald, just a fact.
    0:00:05 And when Elon Musk tweets Trump’s on the list,
    0:00:08 and a few days later, there is no list, it begs questions.
    0:00:12 So they dangled this in order to get votes, and they lied to people.
    0:00:15 And we’re only six months in, and the vandalization that he’s done,
    0:00:18 pushing the boundaries on the rule of law, this is darkness.
    0:00:20 Really? Because I hear this every election cycle.
    0:00:23 No, it’s a dangerous game, and America is struggling,
    0:00:25 and I really worry about our democracy.
    0:00:29 But Trump is likely to lose power unless they can rig the game.
    0:00:33 Governor Gavin Newsom, are you going to try and become
    0:00:35 the next president of the United States?
    0:00:38 Governor of California.
    0:00:39 Gavin Newsom.
    0:00:40 Gavin Newsom.
    0:00:42 Who is the real Gavin Newsom?
    0:00:45 I think most people see me as sort of a slick guy,
    0:00:46 grew up with a trust fund.
    0:00:48 But I didn’t come from any wealth.
    0:00:50 Like, my mom was her single mom.
    0:00:51 She was working two, three jobs.
    0:00:54 She ran out of her own bedroom, sacrificed everything for two kids.
    0:00:58 And I was going nowhere academically, but she never gave up on me.
    0:01:00 And as your sort of political career starts to accelerate,
    0:01:01 she was diagnosed with breast cancer.
    0:01:04 Yeah, and she was in so much pain, suffering,
    0:01:05 she’s going to do an assisted suicide.
    0:01:10 And I was holding her hand, and she’s going…
    0:01:12 And her last breath.
    0:01:15 But look, everything that finds the best of me,
    0:01:17 grit, hard work, is reflected in her.
    0:01:19 And that led to me sitting here with you
    0:01:21 as governor of California in politics.
    0:01:22 He’s an incompetent governor.
    0:01:23 Look at the job he’s doing.
    0:01:25 He’s a stone-cold liar.
    0:01:27 There’s always conflict between you and Trump.
    0:01:29 I think he enjoys sparring with me.
    0:01:32 I know he thrives on it, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say it.
    0:01:34 Every time I have a conversation, it’s unbelievably cordial.
    0:01:36 And he says, you need anything, call me.
    0:01:38 Including the night before he, quote-unquote,
    0:01:41 federalized the National Guard, but then calls me news.
    0:01:43 He wants to take me out.
    0:01:44 Do you think he’s going to try and stay in power?
    0:01:47 So, I don’t think I’m exaggerating.
    0:01:49 But when people close to Donald Trump
    0:01:51 send the governor of California,
    0:01:54 hey, they’re not being around.
    0:01:58 Just give me 30 seconds of your time.
    0:02:00 Two things I wanted to say.
    0:02:01 The first thing is a huge thank you
    0:02:04 for listening and tuning into the show week after week.
    0:02:05 It means the world to all of us,
    0:02:08 and this really is a dream that we absolutely never had
    0:02:10 and couldn’t have imagined getting to this place.
    0:02:13 But secondly, it’s a dream where we feel like
    0:02:14 we’re only just getting started.
    0:02:16 And if you enjoy what we do here,
    0:02:18 please join the 24% of people
    0:02:20 that listen to this podcast regularly
    0:02:22 and follow us on this app.
    0:02:23 here’s a promise I’m going to make to you.
    0:02:26 I’m going to do everything in my power
    0:02:28 to make this show as good as I can
    0:02:29 now and into the future.
    0:02:30 We’re going to deliver the guests
    0:02:31 that you want me to speak to,
    0:02:33 and we’re going to continue to keep doing
    0:02:35 all of the things you love about this show.
    0:02:36 Thank you.
    0:02:41 Governor Gavin Newsom.
    0:02:45 Can you quite believe your life?
    0:02:51 You’re running one of the most consequential states in America,
    0:02:53 arguably the most consequential state in America,
    0:02:56 but also I read that it’s the fourth highest GDP
    0:02:58 in the world.
    0:03:00 It’s always in the headlines.
    0:03:02 There’s always conflict between you and Trump.
    0:03:04 I just wanted to start with this question.
    0:03:06 Can you believe your life?
    0:03:09 If you talk to my 10-year-old self,
    0:03:10 this is impossible.
    0:03:11 I could have even dreamt it.
    0:03:14 I don’t know if it was a dream or a nightmare at 10.
    0:03:19 I mean, I’m not sure this is what I wanted at 10.
    0:03:21 I’m not sure I wanted this at 20 or even 30.
    0:03:25 And I know you’re going to continue to shoulder roll
    0:03:26 what I’m going to say,
    0:03:29 but many of the bookmakers, the odds,
    0:03:31 have you as being the next president
    0:03:33 of the United States in 2028.
    0:03:34 I’m going to throw that.
    0:03:35 I know you’re going to shoulder roll it
    0:03:37 and tell me California.
    0:03:38 Well, that’s surreal.
    0:03:39 I mean, that’s ridiculous.
    0:03:43 I mean, that’s something that even in those higher moments,
    0:03:45 not low moments where I may have had
    0:03:46 a little bit more confidence,
    0:03:48 a million years would never have imagined
    0:03:50 that I would be at this moment.
    0:03:53 And yeah, that creates a lot of humility,
    0:03:55 I have a lot of grace around that.
    0:03:57 I mean, the idea that you’re even in the conversation.
    0:03:59 I know that sounds rote and cliched,
    0:04:00 a little humble brag.
    0:04:04 The fact that I’m in the conversation is extraordinary.
    0:04:05 Is it a reality?
    0:04:05 I don’t know.
    0:04:07 I mean, that’s fate will determine.
    0:04:09 I totally understand that.
    0:04:11 But I want to just get clear on one thing,
    0:04:17 which is you would be honored to play the role
    0:04:18 as president of the United States
    0:04:22 if and when that opportunity called or presented itself.
    0:04:22 Yeah.
    0:04:24 I mean, I don’t know about playing the role,
    0:04:26 but if it, you know, if the moment meets you
    0:04:27 and you meet the moment,
    0:04:31 if you can express with congruency the why,
    0:04:33 and you can do it without the pretense
    0:04:35 and you can do it with authenticity
    0:04:39 and you truly believe that you add value
    0:04:42 against others that may be lined up.
    0:04:44 Yeah.
    0:04:46 But, you know, I won’t go through the motion.
    0:04:48 I don’t need to be something to do something.
    0:04:48 Yeah.
    0:04:52 For me, it’s, you’ve got to, I mean, got to feel it.
    0:04:55 It’s got to be in my core, my soul.
    0:04:58 It’s got to be a burning need and desire
    0:05:01 to be accountable and to reflect the moment
    0:05:02 and reflect the aspirations and the dreams
    0:05:04 of millions and millions of people
    0:05:06 and have enough confidence
    0:05:08 that you feel you can deliver in that respect.
    0:05:10 Do you think you could deliver in that respect?
    0:05:12 You know, increasingly, which is strange.
    0:05:14 I want to, I don’t know that I could have said that
    0:05:14 a few years ago.
    0:05:15 I mean that.
    0:05:18 I feel like things for me have radically changed
    0:05:19 and we can get into why.
    0:05:20 I mean, I’ve gone through,
    0:05:23 they’re working on the seventh recall against me right now.
    0:05:25 I went through a recall process.
    0:05:27 I’ve been on the receiving end of a national effort
    0:05:29 to, you know, try to do everything
    0:05:31 to undermine what I’m doing.
    0:05:33 And going up against Trump and Trumpism
    0:05:35 and the surround sound
    0:05:37 and these propaganda networks 24-7,
    0:05:38 I’m more resolved now.
    0:05:40 I mean, in an intense way.
    0:05:43 Ways I’m discovering myself in this process.
    0:05:45 I’m in the other side
    0:05:48 of where I ever expected to be,
    0:05:48 even a year ago.
    0:05:51 And I feel deeply accountable
    0:05:53 and deeply responsible
    0:05:54 and deeply motivated.
    0:05:56 I don’t know where that takes me
    0:05:59 but I know I have a responsibility
    0:06:00 over the next 18 months
    0:06:03 and I’m going to run the 110-yard dash.
    0:06:05 I’m not going to run the 90-yard dash
    0:06:06 on the way out of here.
    0:06:08 And so that’s what I know.
    0:06:09 I’ve got a sell-by date
    0:06:11 and I’m going to put everything on the line.
    0:06:12 Let’s get into it then
    0:06:14 in terms of your early context
    0:06:15 and your childhood
    0:06:18 because I think you have to understand that
    0:06:19 to understand the person
    0:06:20 and the complexities of the person
    0:06:21 that I’m sat in front of today.
    0:06:22 So can you give me the specifics
    0:06:23 of your earliest context?
    0:06:25 You know, I think it’s shaped
    0:06:26 like so many people watching.
    0:06:27 I mean, how many of us,
    0:06:29 over half of us,
    0:06:30 had similar experiences
    0:06:31 of, you know,
    0:06:32 a 19-year-old who’s pregnant
    0:06:35 with her firstborn, me.
    0:06:36 And a few years later,
    0:06:38 she’s on her own with two kids.
    0:06:40 She came from no wealth,
    0:06:41 no real privilege.
    0:06:42 Her father committed suicide,
    0:06:43 was a prisoner of war
    0:06:45 coming out of World War II.
    0:06:47 She struggled with her own identity,
    0:06:48 her own confidence.
    0:06:50 She struggled raising two kids.
    0:06:53 My father, who left us,
    0:06:54 but not in disgrace,
    0:06:56 who was an extraordinary figure,
    0:06:57 but an elusive figure growing up
    0:06:58 and sort of marked
    0:07:00 so much of my early childhood
    0:07:01 as sort of longing,
    0:07:02 trying to connect.
    0:07:04 But the anchor, the rock,
    0:07:07 was this rock star single mom.
    0:07:09 And everything defines
    0:07:10 the best of me
    0:07:11 and the worst of me.
    0:07:13 This notion of grit, hard work,
    0:07:14 you got to manifest,
    0:07:15 nothing’s going to be handed to you,
    0:07:17 is reflected in her.
    0:07:17 At the same time,
    0:07:19 a lot of the anxiety and fear,
    0:07:21 a sense of, you know,
    0:07:22 I mean, sometimes loneliness.
    0:07:24 I mean, she was a very lonely person.
    0:07:25 Tessa.
    0:07:26 Yeah, Tessa passed away
    0:07:28 almost two decades ago.
    0:07:30 And I’m now older than she was
    0:07:31 when she passed away.
    0:07:32 And, you know, I just,
    0:07:35 I never fully appreciated her
    0:07:37 to the degree I do now
    0:07:38 as a father,
    0:07:40 as a mother struggling
    0:07:43 struggling with not only herself,
    0:07:45 just trying to be a good mother,
    0:07:47 trying to have a career,
    0:07:47 a life,
    0:07:48 but also struggling
    0:07:50 to support her kids
    0:07:51 and support a kid,
    0:07:53 in this case, me,
    0:07:54 who was struggling in every way,
    0:07:56 particularly with pretty severe
    0:07:57 learning disabilities,
    0:07:58 with self-esteem,
    0:08:01 and never fully appreciated
    0:08:02 her sacrifice.
    0:08:03 Give me the color
    0:08:04 on the learning disabilities
    0:08:06 because someone looks at you,
    0:08:07 someone so accomplished
    0:08:07 in both business
    0:08:08 and in politics,
    0:08:10 and you say that you had
    0:08:10 learning difficulties
    0:08:11 as a child.
    0:08:13 I mean, I was a guy
    0:08:14 in the back of the class.
    0:08:16 I was a guy with the head down.
    0:08:17 I was a guy, you know,
    0:08:18 soaking wet, sweating.
    0:08:21 I was a guy shaking underneath,
    0:08:22 not physically shaking.
    0:08:25 Desperate not to be called on
    0:08:25 in the class.
    0:08:26 I’m someone who still
    0:08:27 can’t read a speech.
    0:08:30 You’re in the wrong business,
    0:08:30 I think, politics.
    0:08:32 You can’t read a speech.
    0:08:33 You could do a teleprompter,
    0:08:34 but you’ll never see me.
    0:08:35 You haven’t seen me
    0:08:35 go up and down
    0:08:36 looking at a speech.
    0:08:37 I can’t.
    0:08:38 I still struggle to read.
    0:08:39 If I read,
    0:08:40 I have to underline everything.
    0:08:42 I have to organize
    0:08:43 everything through
    0:08:44 not only underlining,
    0:08:45 highlighting,
    0:08:46 and then I go back
    0:08:48 and reread what I underlined
    0:08:49 in order to understand it.
    0:08:49 Once I understand it,
    0:08:50 boy, I understand it.
    0:08:51 I mean, then it becomes,
    0:08:53 you know, part of who I am,
    0:08:54 which is the other side
    0:08:55 of dyslexia.
    0:08:56 But, you know,
    0:08:57 I was a guy that
    0:08:59 was going nowhere academically.
    0:09:00 You know, I was just,
    0:09:01 I was that kid.
    0:09:02 And I had a sister
    0:09:04 that was the exact opposite.
    0:09:04 You know,
    0:09:06 I’m getting my 960
    0:09:06 in American SAT.
    0:09:08 She was getting 1380.
    0:09:10 It was easy for her.
    0:09:11 Everything was easy for her.
    0:09:13 And so that contrast
    0:09:14 and that anxiety
    0:09:15 that came from that contrast
    0:09:16 and the struggle
    0:09:17 that my mom had
    0:09:18 of trying to sort of
    0:09:19 work with me,
    0:09:20 work, and, you know,
    0:09:21 that was,
    0:09:22 that marked so much of,
    0:09:22 you know,
    0:09:23 my memories
    0:09:24 and decades of my life.
    0:09:25 And at that early age,
    0:09:26 sub 10,
    0:09:27 what did you think
    0:09:28 of yourself?
    0:09:29 What was your self-perception,
    0:09:30 self-image?
    0:09:31 The thing that,
    0:09:32 you know,
    0:09:33 I don’t think
    0:09:34 I’ve shared
    0:09:35 is the thing
    0:09:37 that is most indelible
    0:09:38 in my life
    0:09:38 when my mother
    0:09:40 was struggling with me
    0:09:40 and I’ll never forget it.
    0:09:42 And I don’t recall
    0:09:43 if I responded to her
    0:09:43 at the time,
    0:09:45 but it’s marked
    0:09:46 half a century
    0:09:47 of my life
    0:09:48 when she said,
    0:09:50 because I couldn’t,
    0:09:50 I was just,
    0:09:51 I was giving up.
    0:09:52 I couldn’t read
    0:09:53 this chapter
    0:09:53 or whatever it was.
    0:09:53 She said,
    0:09:54 it’s okay
    0:09:54 to be average.
    0:09:55 Like,
    0:09:59 and I think
    0:09:59 about that
    0:10:00 all the time,
    0:10:00 man.
    0:10:01 I mean,
    0:10:03 and I forgive her,
    0:10:04 I think,
    0:10:05 for that.
    0:10:06 I think
    0:10:08 because she was
    0:10:08 struggling with me,
    0:10:10 but that’s a hell
    0:10:10 of a thing
    0:10:11 to say to a kid.
    0:10:12 And I think
    0:10:13 she was just saying
    0:10:13 it’s okay.
    0:10:14 You don’t have
    0:10:14 to be your sister.
    0:10:16 You’re not your dad.
    0:10:17 You know,
    0:10:17 you’ll never be
    0:10:18 that person.
    0:10:20 I loved her deeply
    0:10:21 and I’m here
    0:10:22 because of her,
    0:10:23 but that,
    0:10:24 shapes a lot
    0:10:25 of the early,
    0:10:27 that person
    0:10:28 that,
    0:10:28 you know,
    0:10:29 and it’s shaped
    0:10:30 who I’ve become
    0:10:31 because I’ve done
    0:10:31 everything in my power
    0:10:34 to overcompensate
    0:10:36 for the struggle
    0:10:38 and for that mindset
    0:10:40 where I could have
    0:10:41 easily believed that
    0:10:43 and I could have
    0:10:44 easily become that.
    0:10:46 In terms of money
    0:10:47 in the home,
    0:10:48 I sometimes think of
    0:10:49 when I think about
    0:10:49 my own childhood,
    0:10:50 money was almost
    0:10:51 this other person.
    0:10:51 You know,
    0:10:52 it’s funny,
    0:10:52 we talk about
    0:10:53 attachment styles
    0:10:53 and we say
    0:10:54 some people have
    0:10:54 like this avoidant
    0:10:55 attachment style,
    0:10:56 this anxious attachment style,
    0:10:57 this secure attachment style
    0:10:58 and I think of money
    0:10:59 in the same way.
    0:11:01 It’s in homes,
    0:11:03 it’s a person.
    0:11:04 Sometimes it’s distant
    0:11:04 and never there.
    0:11:05 Sometimes it’s causing
    0:11:05 the argument.
    0:11:07 What was money
    0:11:08 in your household?
    0:11:09 Like what was the relationship
    0:11:10 that you’d formed with it?
    0:11:11 Well,
    0:11:12 I had interesting experience
    0:11:13 with money
    0:11:15 because we didn’t
    0:11:16 come from any wealth
    0:11:17 but my father,
    0:11:20 his relationships
    0:11:21 were attached
    0:11:22 to extraordinary wealth,
    0:11:23 abundance of wealth.
    0:11:25 His closest friends
    0:11:25 in the world
    0:11:26 were some of the richest
    0:11:27 families in the world
    0:11:29 and he,
    0:11:31 while he didn’t have
    0:11:32 himself tremendous amount
    0:11:32 of wealth,
    0:11:34 he led a very wealthy
    0:11:34 lifestyle.
    0:11:35 Meanwhile,
    0:11:36 my mom and I
    0:11:37 and my sister
    0:11:37 were there
    0:11:38 doing,
    0:11:39 you know,
    0:11:40 our Swanson’s,
    0:11:41 you know,
    0:11:42 frozen food.
    0:11:43 We’re doing our
    0:11:44 crap macaroni and cheese.
    0:11:45 We’re doing our,
    0:11:45 you know,
    0:11:47 but money was always
    0:11:48 the source of the stress
    0:11:49 because he didn’t
    0:11:50 have much to give her.
    0:11:51 She didn’t have much,
    0:11:52 period.
    0:11:53 So she was working
    0:11:53 two,
    0:11:54 three jobs
    0:11:54 and when I say
    0:11:54 two,
    0:11:55 three jobs,
    0:11:55 when I say that,
    0:11:56 I mean literally
    0:11:57 two,
    0:11:57 three jobs.
    0:11:58 We had guests
    0:11:59 always living at the house.
    0:12:00 I didn’t understand
    0:12:01 what guests living
    0:12:01 at the house mean.
    0:12:02 She moved out
    0:12:03 of her own bedroom
    0:12:05 to rent out the bedroom.
    0:12:06 If you wanted something,
    0:12:07 I had a paper route,
    0:12:08 worked for Jeff Hicks
    0:12:09 Construction.
    0:12:10 If you want a basketball hoop,
    0:12:11 you’re going to have
    0:12:11 to work for it.
    0:12:12 There was nothing handed,
    0:12:13 nothing given.
    0:12:15 And so she was grinding.
    0:12:16 She’s working
    0:12:17 in part-time waitress.
    0:12:18 I got in the restaurant business.
    0:12:19 I was a busboy.
    0:12:20 And there’s some moments
    0:12:21 that changed my life there
    0:12:22 that I’ll never,
    0:12:22 ever,
    0:12:22 ever,
    0:12:23 ever,
    0:12:23 ever forget.
    0:12:25 And so money
    0:12:27 was a source of stress
    0:12:30 but also some evil
    0:12:30 in the context
    0:12:31 of too much
    0:12:33 and seeing the abundance
    0:12:34 with people I knew,
    0:12:35 with trust funds,
    0:12:36 with the relationship
    0:12:37 to money,
    0:12:38 where they lost
    0:12:38 their motivation,
    0:12:39 they lost their purpose,
    0:12:40 their meaning,
    0:12:40 their mission.
    0:12:42 And so when I started
    0:12:43 getting into business,
    0:12:44 it was never about
    0:12:45 making money.
    0:12:45 It was about
    0:12:46 making a difference.
    0:12:46 It was about
    0:12:47 building something,
    0:12:48 a brand.
    0:12:49 It was about
    0:12:50 adding some value.
    0:12:51 And that pursuit,
    0:12:52 I think,
    0:12:53 created a mindset
    0:12:54 where the businesses
    0:12:56 actually really thrived
    0:12:57 because it wasn’t
    0:12:58 about the money.
    0:12:58 It was about
    0:12:59 something more important.
    0:13:00 It was bigger than that.
    0:13:01 And so my relationship
    0:13:03 to money in that respect
    0:13:04 really became a gift,
    0:13:05 a guide,
    0:13:06 in terms of my
    0:13:08 entrepreneurial pursuits.
    0:13:09 Dyslexia certainly
    0:13:10 was the greatest gift
    0:13:11 in the relationship
    0:13:12 to the entrepreneurial suits.
    0:13:13 And that led to this,
    0:13:14 led to me sitting here
    0:13:16 with you as governor
    0:13:17 of California in politics.
    0:13:18 And when did you find out
    0:13:19 you had dyslexia?
    0:13:21 Because I read that your mother…
    0:13:22 She didn’t tell me.
    0:13:24 And I wonder,
    0:13:24 I think about this
    0:13:25 because I’ve got a couple
    0:13:26 kids that are struggling.
    0:13:29 And we made the mistake
    0:13:30 with one of them
    0:13:30 to tell them,
    0:13:31 yeah, I think you got…
    0:13:32 And now uses it as a crutch.
    0:13:34 And she never wanted it
    0:13:34 as a crutch.
    0:13:35 She never told me.
    0:13:36 She said,
    0:13:37 I found out about it.
    0:13:38 I was home early one day,
    0:13:39 came back from school.
    0:13:41 And I don’t know why,
    0:13:42 but I handed up in her room.
    0:13:43 And I’m looking,
    0:13:44 she’s got a little desk
    0:13:45 and there’s a file open.
    0:13:45 And I’m like,
    0:13:46 looking through files.
    0:13:48 And then I saw
    0:13:49 the word dyslexia.
    0:13:49 I’m like,
    0:13:51 the hell is this?
    0:13:52 And I remember she got home.
    0:13:52 I said,
    0:13:53 mom, what is this?
    0:13:55 And she goes,
    0:13:55 put that away.
    0:13:56 I’m like,
    0:13:57 what is it?
    0:13:57 She goes,
    0:13:57 no,
    0:13:59 and we had this
    0:14:00 conversation.
    0:14:01 She said,
    0:14:01 I didn’t really want
    0:14:02 to talk to you about it.
    0:14:03 You’ve been struggling with it.
    0:14:03 I said,
    0:14:04 I know I can’t read it.
    0:14:05 You know,
    0:14:05 I’m stupid, mom.
    0:14:06 And she said,
    0:14:07 no, you’re not stupid.
    0:14:08 We’re working through all that.
    0:14:09 And she just didn’t want
    0:14:10 to create the stigma.
    0:14:11 She didn’t want me
    0:14:12 to use it as a crutch,
    0:14:13 as an excuse.
    0:14:15 I think I’m angry back
    0:14:17 to the sort of,
    0:14:17 you know,
    0:14:18 dialect in my own brain
    0:14:19 about good,
    0:14:20 bad.
    0:14:22 I appreciated that
    0:14:23 because it was an excuse,
    0:14:24 not a victim.
    0:14:25 Decisions,
    0:14:26 not conditions,
    0:14:27 term our fate and future.
    0:14:28 This notion
    0:14:30 that we can shape things
    0:14:31 that I don’t,
    0:14:32 that I wasn’t stigmatized
    0:14:33 in that respect.
    0:14:35 So I can make excuses
    0:14:35 around it.
    0:14:37 I had to work around it.
    0:14:38 I had to work through it.
    0:14:39 And I think
    0:14:40 that was the path
    0:14:41 she chose.
    0:14:42 and I’m in many ways
    0:14:43 grateful that she did.
    0:14:44 Were you bullied
    0:14:45 by other children?
    0:14:45 Yeah,
    0:14:47 we had Baltimore Street.
    0:14:48 I told the president
    0:14:48 this too.
    0:14:51 Speaking of Trump,
    0:14:53 we were talking
    0:14:54 a few weeks ago
    0:14:54 and he goes,
    0:14:54 hey,
    0:14:56 this new scum thing,
    0:14:56 you know,
    0:14:57 because he calls me
    0:14:57 new scum,
    0:14:58 Gavin,
    0:14:59 new scum.
    0:14:59 He goes,
    0:15:00 pretty original,
    0:15:00 right?
    0:15:01 I said,
    0:15:02 it’s not,
    0:15:03 Ms. President,
    0:15:04 it’s not particularly original.
    0:15:06 And he goes,
    0:15:06 what do you mean?
    0:15:07 What do you mean?
    0:15:07 I said,
    0:15:07 well,
    0:15:09 there was the bully
    0:15:10 on Baltimore Street
    0:15:11 in Corte Madera,
    0:15:12 California,
    0:15:12 he used to call me
    0:15:13 new scum.
    0:15:14 He goes,
    0:15:14 ah,
    0:15:14 hey,
    0:15:14 well,
    0:15:15 you know,
    0:15:15 whatever,
    0:15:15 yeah.
    0:15:17 I mean,
    0:15:18 he was 7,
    0:15:18 8,
    0:15:18 or 9,
    0:15:19 you’re 79,
    0:15:20 Mr. President.
    0:15:21 I told him that too.
    0:15:22 And he moved
    0:15:22 immediately off
    0:15:23 on another topic.
    0:15:24 Yeah,
    0:15:25 so we,
    0:15:25 you know,
    0:15:27 I was the bowl cut guy,
    0:15:28 the hair,
    0:15:28 you know,
    0:15:29 the Dutch boy look,
    0:15:29 you know,
    0:15:30 you remember,
    0:15:30 I don’t know if you
    0:15:31 remember the old
    0:15:31 Dutch boy stuff,
    0:15:33 the sort of American,
    0:15:35 iconic American brand.
    0:15:38 and it was easy
    0:15:39 to see why
    0:15:40 I might have been bullied.
    0:15:42 I’ve got a picture here
    0:15:42 of you.
    0:15:43 Look at me,
    0:15:43 in fact,
    0:15:44 isn’t that great?
    0:15:46 So you get the haircut,
    0:15:47 you get the vibe.
    0:15:49 This is my father
    0:15:51 trying to insert,
    0:15:53 so Irish Catholic family,
    0:15:54 my dad went to
    0:15:55 Catholic schools
    0:15:56 and so by definition,
    0:15:58 I went to Catholic school.
    0:15:59 My mother,
    0:16:00 who loved the sailor outfits,
    0:16:01 knee high,
    0:16:01 black socks.
    0:16:03 Yeah,
    0:16:04 you’re likely to get bullied
    0:16:05 or going to the bus.
    0:16:06 It’s not the best cut,
    0:16:06 but we’ve all,
    0:16:07 we’ve all had,
    0:16:08 we’ve all been on a journey
    0:16:09 with our haircuts.
    0:16:10 It’s good.
    0:16:11 When I hear your story
    0:16:12 and the context
    0:16:13 you grew up in
    0:16:14 with your mother,
    0:16:14 with the bullying,
    0:16:16 with the challenges at school,
    0:16:17 with the dad,
    0:16:18 that’s a way.
    0:16:19 And I know the stats
    0:16:21 around young boys
    0:16:22 that grew up in particular
    0:16:23 that don’t have
    0:16:24 a father figure at home.
    0:16:24 That,
    0:16:25 for me,
    0:16:26 that’s a perfect recipe
    0:16:27 for like small T,
    0:16:28 maybe big T trauma
    0:16:29 in some capacity.
    0:16:31 Later in your life,
    0:16:32 you talked about
    0:16:34 having challenges
    0:16:35 with alcohol.
    0:16:36 Yeah,
    0:16:36 oh yeah,
    0:16:36 no.
    0:16:37 And I wondered
    0:16:39 if that picture,
    0:16:40 that’s part of the same picture,
    0:16:42 which is putting the mask
    0:16:43 on various forms
    0:16:43 of escapism.
    0:16:44 Yeah.
    0:16:45 No,
    0:16:45 100%.
    0:16:46 Well,
    0:16:46 look,
    0:16:46 I mean,
    0:16:48 my grandfather
    0:16:49 that took his life
    0:16:50 was an alcoholic.
    0:16:53 And my mother
    0:16:54 struggled a little bit
    0:16:55 and it was more
    0:16:55 self-medicating.
    0:16:56 For me,
    0:16:57 I started discovering
    0:16:58 that as well.
    0:16:58 Of course,
    0:16:58 look,
    0:16:59 I got in the wine business.
    0:17:00 Yeah.
    0:17:01 So I’m neatly attracted
    0:17:03 to the business side of it.
    0:17:04 Opened a wine store
    0:17:05 right out of college.
    0:17:07 Opened a number of restaurants
    0:17:08 at seven or eight restaurants.
    0:17:09 Have four wineries
    0:17:11 as I speak today.
    0:17:12 So wine became ubiquitous
    0:17:13 in my life.
    0:17:13 It was also my connection
    0:17:14 back to my dad,
    0:17:15 which is a whole other journey.
    0:17:16 And you started
    0:17:18 that business in 1992,
    0:17:19 which was the year
    0:17:19 I was born.
    0:17:21 And as I,
    0:17:21 as I,
    0:17:24 as I sit here
    0:17:26 32 years later,
    0:17:27 the business still exists.
    0:17:28 You’ve placed it into a trust.
    0:17:29 It still exists.
    0:17:30 And I grew about,
    0:17:32 there were 22 or four businesses
    0:17:33 at peak,
    0:17:34 about a thousand employees
    0:17:34 at peak.
    0:17:36 Came from that one business.
    0:17:38 I was the only full-time employee
    0:17:39 for almost two years.
    0:17:40 Yeah,
    0:17:40 I’ll tell you,
    0:17:41 just the greatest training
    0:17:43 for politics and life,
    0:17:44 just opening your own business,
    0:17:45 small business.
    0:17:46 And those were
    0:17:47 some special days
    0:17:48 and went from that
    0:17:49 to a restaurant
    0:17:50 up the block.
    0:17:51 A few years later,
    0:17:52 a hotel,
    0:17:53 a winery,
    0:17:54 now four wineries.
    0:17:57 We had five or six hotels
    0:17:58 and nine restaurants
    0:17:58 at peak
    0:18:00 and businesses
    0:18:00 are still around.
    0:18:02 I was reading that
    0:18:03 you had this sort of scheme
    0:18:05 where you gave employees
    0:18:06 $500
    0:18:08 for a magical moment award.
    0:18:09 Well,
    0:18:10 it was a failure award.
    0:18:10 A failure award.
    0:18:11 And then it became,
    0:18:13 my sister took over
    0:18:14 because I got into politics
    0:18:15 and she said,
    0:18:16 I don’t like this failure framework.
    0:18:17 I said,
    0:18:17 well,
    0:18:18 it’s the best.
    0:18:19 I love failure.
    0:18:20 I’m good at it.
    0:18:22 Dyslexics are the best at it.
    0:18:24 There’s nothing linear
    0:18:25 about our lives.
    0:18:26 It’s fail forward fast,
    0:18:27 missed 100% of the shots
    0:18:27 you don’t take.
    0:18:28 So you were giving employees
    0:18:30 $500 if they failed.
    0:18:31 Yeah,
    0:18:31 I had a great,
    0:18:33 just a very brief example.
    0:18:35 So I had a little hotel
    0:18:35 up in Squaw Valley,
    0:18:37 Lake Tahoe area,
    0:18:38 and a lot of mosquitoes
    0:18:38 during the summer months.
    0:18:40 It’s an old motel
    0:18:42 built for the Winter Olympics,
    0:18:43 the 1960 Winter Olympics,
    0:18:44 built in 1959
    0:18:44 for the delegates.
    0:18:46 It was supposed to be torn down.
    0:18:47 It sort of patched together
    0:18:49 and we held it together
    0:18:50 but it had no air conditioning.
    0:18:51 So you’d keep the doors open,
    0:18:52 you’d keep the windows open,
    0:18:53 but in the summer,
    0:18:54 the mosquitoes came in,
    0:18:55 drove the guests crazy.
    0:18:56 So we had this night clerk,
    0:18:57 you know,
    0:18:58 those crazy night clerks come in
    0:18:59 and he was getting complaints
    0:19:00 all the time about the mosquitoes
    0:19:02 and he on his own
    0:19:03 decided one day to go
    0:19:04 before he went to work
    0:19:05 get in at 11 o’clock at night
    0:19:07 and he bought a bunch of catfish
    0:19:08 at the store
    0:19:10 because there’s a bunch of ponds
    0:19:11 around the business
    0:19:11 and he figured
    0:19:12 that’s where all the mosquitoes
    0:19:13 are starting.
    0:19:14 So the catfish will eat
    0:19:17 the larva of the mosquitoes
    0:19:18 and he’d solve the problem.
    0:19:19 So he just on his own
    0:19:21 decided to buy a bunch of catfish,
    0:19:22 dumped them in the ponds
    0:19:23 all around the hotel.
    0:19:23 Well,
    0:19:25 about four in the morning,
    0:19:26 this engineer calls me,
    0:19:26 grew up guy,
    0:19:27 he says,
    0:19:28 the raccoons
    0:19:30 had a feeding frenzy
    0:19:32 and ran through the hotel
    0:19:33 because the doors were open
    0:19:35 with a bunch of,
    0:19:36 you know,
    0:19:38 flying fish in their mouths
    0:19:39 and fish everywhere
    0:19:41 and Ludo said,
    0:19:42 you got to fire that son of a bitch,
    0:19:43 this goddamn idiot.
    0:19:45 and I started laughing,
    0:19:47 went up there the next morning,
    0:19:47 met with him
    0:19:48 and I said,
    0:19:49 this is a magical thing.
    0:19:50 You tried to solve
    0:19:51 a goddamn problem
    0:19:53 and we created the failure award
    0:19:55 and I gave the biggest screw up
    0:19:56 every single month
    0:19:57 a bonus
    0:19:58 and at the end of the year,
    0:19:59 we’d put them all together,
    0:20:00 January screw up,
    0:20:01 February screw up
    0:20:02 and we’d have the failure
    0:20:03 of the year award
    0:20:05 and did that for years
    0:20:06 until my sister said,
    0:20:06 we’ll call it
    0:20:07 the magical moment award.
    0:20:09 but it was about initiative,
    0:20:10 taking initiative,
    0:20:11 taking responsibility,
    0:20:12 taking ownership,
    0:20:14 trying new things,
    0:20:15 seeing what works,
    0:20:15 iteration,
    0:20:17 entrepreneurial mindset.
    0:20:18 It’s not linear.
    0:20:20 It’s thinking creatively
    0:20:21 outside the box.
    0:20:22 It’s what a dyslexic
    0:20:23 by definition has to do
    0:20:25 and that’s what I thought
    0:20:26 a successful business
    0:20:26 needed to do
    0:20:29 and it literally empowered,
    0:20:30 our employees loved it
    0:20:32 because they felt seen and heard.
    0:20:33 And safe, I guess.
    0:20:33 And safe
    0:20:34 because they were like,
    0:20:36 as long as they do it with,
    0:20:36 you know,
    0:20:38 no one’s jumping off cliffs here
    0:20:38 we’re not encouraging,
    0:20:39 you know,
    0:20:40 recklessness,
    0:20:41 but risk taking.
    0:20:43 And it literally allowed
    0:20:43 the business
    0:20:44 not just to survive
    0:20:46 but to start to thrive
    0:20:47 in ways I could never have imagined.
    0:20:49 I think that’s really important.
    0:20:50 It’s just such an important lesson
    0:20:51 to so many business owners,
    0:20:52 especially in these changing times
    0:20:53 where everything’s moving
    0:20:54 so quickly in AI and technology
    0:20:56 that most people
    0:20:57 are incentivized
    0:21:00 just to business as usual.
    0:21:00 You know,
    0:21:02 protect our position
    0:21:03 if we’re successful
    0:21:04 or, you know,
    0:21:05 to prolong convention
    0:21:06 or whatever that might mean
    0:21:07 but businesses
    0:21:07 that adopt that approach
    0:21:09 clearly have an edge
    0:21:10 in these rapidly changing times.
    0:21:11 Yeah, no,
    0:21:12 and look,
    0:21:12 I mean,
    0:21:13 back to just,
    0:21:13 you know,
    0:21:14 I remember
    0:21:15 there was a book
    0:21:15 Tom Peters wrote
    0:21:17 called The Pursuit of Wow.
    0:21:18 I mean,
    0:21:19 if there was one book
    0:21:21 that just hit me
    0:21:22 in the core
    0:21:23 that sort of expressed
    0:21:25 everything I wanted to become,
    0:21:26 he talked about
    0:21:27 hire the smile,
    0:21:27 train the skill,
    0:21:29 about finding
    0:21:31 these superstar leaders
    0:21:32 and developing owners
    0:21:34 with your leadership team
    0:21:35 that they,
    0:21:35 you know,
    0:21:36 he talked about,
    0:21:36 I remember
    0:21:37 the Ritz-Carlton
    0:21:37 at the time
    0:21:40 gave literally cash
    0:21:42 to the folks
    0:21:42 that were cleaning
    0:21:43 the rooms
    0:21:44 and gave them
    0:21:45 the ability
    0:21:46 to use the cash
    0:21:46 as needed
    0:21:48 to solve a problem
    0:21:49 for their customers.
    0:21:50 They created ownership
    0:21:52 with frontline employees
    0:21:54 that were undervalued
    0:21:54 or devalued.
    0:21:55 He talked about,
    0:21:56 I remember,
    0:21:58 diversity as a business essential
    0:22:00 with all the anti-woke,
    0:22:01 anti-DEI stuff
    0:22:02 we’re dealing with
    0:22:02 in the United States of America.
    0:22:03 I mean,
    0:22:04 from a business perspective,
    0:22:06 there’s a business imperative
    0:22:08 to advance diversity.
    0:22:09 But it was Peter’s
    0:22:10 decades ago
    0:22:11 that really created
    0:22:12 that mindset for me
    0:22:13 in the business,
    0:22:14 diversity broadly defined
    0:22:16 in every way,
    0:22:16 shape, or form.
    0:22:17 And so,
    0:22:18 the business became
    0:22:19 this sort of,
    0:22:20 the pursuit of wow,
    0:22:21 of awe,
    0:22:22 of surprise,
    0:22:23 iteration,
    0:22:25 of daring,
    0:22:26 energy.
    0:22:27 So the core ideology
    0:22:28 just kept growing
    0:22:28 in that space.
    0:22:29 Restaurants,
    0:22:29 hotels,
    0:22:30 wineries,
    0:22:31 and audacious,
    0:22:32 adventurous people
    0:22:34 that wanted to sort of
    0:22:35 build a brand,
    0:22:35 build something
    0:22:36 that was special.
    0:22:37 It wasn’t about money.
    0:22:38 It was about pursuit
    0:22:39 of meaning and purpose,
    0:22:39 moments.
    0:22:41 So why did you leave that
    0:22:41 and do politics?
    0:22:42 I know.
    0:22:45 There was a phone,
    0:22:45 two things happened.
    0:22:46 I got a phone call.
    0:22:47 I was running the wine store,
    0:22:48 closing it up,
    0:22:49 doing bookkeeping,
    0:22:49 accounting.
    0:22:50 You know,
    0:22:50 the warehouse
    0:22:52 was in my apartment.
    0:22:53 One night,
    0:22:54 right before I’m closing up,
    0:22:57 this guy runs in to the store
    0:22:59 and a very nervous guy.
    0:23:00 And he’s like,
    0:23:01 can you help me?
    0:23:02 What’s a good champagne?
    0:23:02 Just,
    0:23:03 I got to get a call.
    0:23:03 He’s like,
    0:23:03 thank you.
    0:23:04 Put it away.
    0:23:04 I’m like,
    0:23:05 it’s good.
    0:23:05 He goes,
    0:23:06 can you wrap it?
    0:23:06 I said,
    0:23:06 yeah,
    0:23:07 I got to wrap it.
    0:23:07 He says,
    0:23:08 thank you,
    0:23:08 man.
    0:23:09 About 30 minutes later,
    0:23:10 the guy comes back.
    0:23:10 I’m like,
    0:23:11 oh,
    0:23:11 damn.
    0:23:12 Like,
    0:23:13 I screwed up or something.
    0:23:15 But he’s got this girl with him.
    0:23:16 And he’s knocking on the wall
    0:23:17 and I open the key back up.
    0:23:18 He comes in.
    0:23:18 He goes,
    0:23:19 I just want to introduce you
    0:23:19 to my fiance.
    0:23:21 And I said,
    0:23:22 wow.
    0:23:22 He goes,
    0:23:23 well,
    0:23:24 your champagne,
    0:23:25 I just asked her
    0:23:26 to marry down the block
    0:23:27 at the Palace of Fine Arts.
    0:23:28 And we love the champagne.
    0:23:29 And I just want to say,
    0:23:30 thank you.
    0:23:31 You were so nice to me.
    0:23:33 I remember literally sitting there
    0:23:35 crying after he left.
    0:23:36 Like,
    0:23:36 that’s everything.
    0:23:37 This is like,
    0:23:40 this is business,
    0:23:40 man.
    0:23:42 It’s not a transaction.
    0:23:43 It’s relationships.
    0:23:44 Talk about moments.
    0:23:45 Magic,
    0:23:45 man.
    0:23:47 That’s it.
    0:23:48 To your point,
    0:23:48 I thought,
    0:23:48 this is it.
    0:23:49 This is my bliss.
    0:23:51 I’m going to keep doing this forever.
    0:23:52 And then I got a damn call
    0:23:53 from the mayor of San Francisco.
    0:23:55 Can I just ask you on that question?
    0:23:56 When that guy came in
    0:23:56 with his fiance,
    0:23:59 why was it so meaningful to you?
    0:24:00 I can literally still see
    0:24:01 the emotion in your face.
    0:24:02 some 20 years later.
    0:24:05 Because what I did
    0:24:05 had meaning.
    0:24:07 It mattered.
    0:24:08 In a way,
    0:24:08 I never thought.
    0:24:09 I thought it was a transaction.
    0:24:11 I thought he was buying something.
    0:24:12 I was selling something.
    0:24:13 It wasn’t that,
    0:24:13 man.
    0:24:15 It was marking
    0:24:17 a really important moment
    0:24:18 in his life.
    0:24:20 Business changed after that.
    0:24:21 It wasn’t business.
    0:24:22 It was just,
    0:24:24 it was a different proposition.
    0:24:25 And then you get a phone call.
    0:24:26 And I get a phone call
    0:24:28 and screwed everything up.
    0:24:30 Willie Brown says,
    0:24:30 hey,
    0:24:30 you’ve been,
    0:24:32 you just opened this store
    0:24:34 and I’ve been reading
    0:24:35 you were complaining
    0:24:36 getting those permits.
    0:24:37 It was taking too long.
    0:24:38 He’s Willie Brown.
    0:24:38 Willie Brown,
    0:24:40 the mayor of San Francisco,
    0:24:41 former speaker
    0:24:42 of the California Assembly,
    0:24:43 one of the most dynamic,
    0:24:44 one of the most
    0:24:45 extraordinary politicians
    0:24:47 in California history,
    0:24:48 I would argue,
    0:24:49 American history.
    0:24:50 And I don’t say that lightly.
    0:24:52 Some of the world’s
    0:24:53 great leaders
    0:24:53 will identify
    0:24:54 as Willie Brown
    0:24:55 as one of the most
    0:24:56 transformative political leaders.
    0:24:58 And so there’s
    0:24:59 a couple articles
    0:25:00 in the paper
    0:25:00 about me bitching
    0:25:01 about permits
    0:25:02 and parking or something.
    0:25:04 And he calls me,
    0:25:04 he goes,
    0:25:06 it’s Willie Brown.
    0:25:06 I’m like,
    0:25:07 oh, Mr. Mayor.
    0:25:07 He goes,
    0:25:08 hey,
    0:25:09 come on down.
    0:25:10 Next Wednesday,
    0:25:11 I’m going to put you
    0:25:12 on the film commission.
    0:25:12 I’m like,
    0:25:13 this is amazing.
    0:25:13 I’m going to be
    0:25:14 on the film commission.
    0:25:15 I’m 20-something years old,
    0:25:16 got a wine store,
    0:25:18 about to open a restaurant
    0:25:19 that I was working on.
    0:25:20 And now he’s put me
    0:25:20 on the film commission.
    0:25:21 I go down to City Hall
    0:25:22 that next Wednesday.
    0:25:24 It’s a group of 20 or 30 people.
    0:25:26 He’s swearing a bunch of people
    0:25:26 on the commissions.
    0:25:27 And he says,
    0:25:28 and Gavin Newsom,
    0:25:28 you know,
    0:25:30 opened a wine store
    0:25:31 down the block,
    0:25:31 blah, blah, blah.
    0:25:33 Goes the new chair
    0:25:34 of the parking
    0:25:34 and traffic commission.
    0:25:35 I’m like,
    0:25:37 I thought I was going
    0:25:38 on the film commission.
    0:25:39 Literally didn’t tell me
    0:25:40 or anyone.
    0:25:41 I didn’t even know
    0:25:41 what chair meant.
    0:25:42 And all of a sudden,
    0:25:44 26, 7 years old,
    0:25:45 I’m now the president
    0:25:47 of San Francisco’s
    0:25:48 Parking and Traffic Commission.
    0:25:50 He just randomly
    0:25:51 put me in that position.
    0:25:52 Inspiration,
    0:25:53 desperation.
    0:25:54 I don’t know
    0:25:55 what the hell
    0:25:55 I was doing.
    0:25:57 And that was how
    0:25:59 my political career began.
    0:26:00 Literally that phone call,
    0:26:01 that appointment,
    0:26:03 not to film,
    0:26:05 but parking and traffic.
    0:26:07 And that marked
    0:26:10 a pretty significant moment
    0:26:11 in hindsight in my life.
    0:26:12 And that was
    0:26:13 a pivotal moment
    0:26:15 in your trajectory
    0:26:15 because you were
    0:26:16 on course to continue
    0:26:17 being an entrepreneur
    0:26:18 probably for the rest
    0:26:19 of your life.
    0:26:19 Yeah, yeah.
    0:26:21 It could have been somebody.
    0:26:23 Jesus.
    0:26:24 So give me the whistle stop
    0:26:25 between that moment
    0:26:26 when he places you
    0:26:27 in this role
    0:26:28 to here.
    0:26:30 I know whistle stop
    0:26:31 is a tough word to use
    0:26:32 to describe that journey,
    0:26:33 but what is the whistle stop?
    0:26:33 Well, I just,
    0:26:34 I mean,
    0:26:35 I put my head down.
    0:26:36 I learned everything I could
    0:26:38 back to sort of the humility
    0:26:39 of not knowing
    0:26:39 what you don’t know
    0:26:40 and recognizing,
    0:26:41 you know,
    0:26:42 success leaves clues
    0:26:44 and you can learn
    0:26:45 from everybody.
    0:26:47 And I started listening,
    0:26:47 learning from people,
    0:26:48 absorbing.
    0:26:50 And I applied myself
    0:26:51 as parking traffic commissioner
    0:26:51 so much so
    0:26:52 nine months later
    0:26:54 there was a vacancy
    0:26:55 on our board of supervisors,
    0:26:56 our city council.
    0:26:58 And Willie Brown goes,
    0:26:59 you know what?
    0:27:00 You’ve been doing
    0:27:01 a pretty decent job here, man.
    0:27:02 I’m going to give you a shot.
    0:27:04 So I was a relatively young guy.
    0:27:06 Now is the entrepreneur
    0:27:08 business person
    0:27:09 on our city council
    0:27:10 slash board of supervisors.
    0:27:12 And I just hit the ground running.
    0:27:14 I opened,
    0:27:15 I by that time
    0:27:16 opened a few extra businesses.
    0:27:18 It was a part-time job,
    0:27:20 but I started to apply myself
    0:27:21 a little bit more full-time.
    0:27:22 Had to put together
    0:27:23 a management group
    0:27:24 to start managing the business
    0:27:26 and started applying myself more
    0:27:27 as a supervisor.
    0:27:29 Spent almost seven,
    0:27:30 eight years doing that.
    0:27:32 And I was a relatively young guy,
    0:27:33 33, four.
    0:27:34 And Willie Brown
    0:27:35 was termed out as mayor
    0:27:36 and there was an open
    0:27:38 with the mayor’s seat.
    0:27:39 And I think at 33,
    0:27:39 I announced,
    0:27:41 why the hell not?
    0:27:42 You know,
    0:27:43 give it a shot.
    0:27:44 Miss 100% of shots
    0:27:44 you don’t take.
    0:27:46 And it was,
    0:27:46 I think,
    0:27:47 pulling third or fourth
    0:27:49 and decided to go for it
    0:27:50 and ran for mayor
    0:27:51 of San Francisco.
    0:27:52 You became mayor
    0:27:53 of San Francisco.
    0:27:54 You had a big impact
    0:27:56 while you were mayor
    0:27:56 of San Francisco.
    0:27:57 One of the things
    0:27:58 people remember you a lot for
    0:28:00 is your attitude
    0:28:01 towards same-sex couples
    0:28:04 and the Defense of Marriage Act
    0:28:05 where you took a quite
    0:28:06 controversial stance
    0:28:07 at the time
    0:28:08 by enabling,
    0:28:10 I believe it was,
    0:28:11 same-sex couples
    0:28:12 in the state
    0:28:13 to get their marriage licenses?
    0:28:14 Well,
    0:28:14 it was,
    0:28:15 yeah,
    0:28:17 it was 2004
    0:28:18 and my party,
    0:28:19 the Democratic Party
    0:28:20 was not,
    0:28:22 people were not
    0:28:23 enthusiastic,
    0:28:25 weren’t even promoting,
    0:28:25 in fact,
    0:28:26 they were almost universally
    0:28:27 opposed to
    0:28:28 same-sex marriage.
    0:28:29 And I had an experience
    0:28:30 in Washington, D.C.
    0:28:31 Nancy Pelosi,
    0:28:32 the Speaker of the House,
    0:28:33 invited me as a new mayor
    0:28:35 to listen to George Bush
    0:28:36 give his final
    0:28:37 State of the Union speech.
    0:28:38 And I was there
    0:28:40 with an extra ticket,
    0:28:40 her husband’s ticket,
    0:28:41 and I was up there
    0:28:42 in the rafters
    0:28:43 listening to George Bush
    0:28:44 give his speech.
    0:28:45 And in the speech,
    0:28:46 he’s talking about Iraq war,
    0:28:47 he’s talking about
    0:28:48 a lot of interesting things.
    0:28:50 And he ends with,
    0:28:51 it’s time for a constitutional amendment
    0:28:53 to ban same-sex marriage.
    0:28:54 And everyone starts applauding.
    0:28:55 And the people around me
    0:28:56 are applauding.
    0:28:56 I’m like,
    0:28:57 Jesus.
    0:28:59 I walked back out
    0:29:01 and you had to put your cell phones,
    0:29:02 early cell phone days.
    0:29:04 And we’re all in line
    0:29:05 waiting to get our cell phones back.
    0:29:07 And I remember the couple
    0:29:07 right next to me
    0:29:09 as I’m waiting in line
    0:29:10 after the speech goes,
    0:29:11 that was a hell of a speech.
    0:29:12 the president gave.
    0:29:14 I’m so sick and tired.
    0:29:14 I’ll never forget
    0:29:15 what these guys said.
    0:29:16 I’m so sick and tired
    0:29:18 of the homosexual agenda.
    0:29:19 And I’m like,
    0:29:20 and I literally turned
    0:29:21 homosexual agenda.
    0:29:21 It was pejorative.
    0:29:23 And all I thought about
    0:29:23 is, man,
    0:29:24 I want to introduce myself
    0:29:25 as mayor of San Francisco.
    0:29:27 I didn’t say a word.
    0:29:28 I didn’t even thought
    0:29:29 about marriage equality.
    0:29:30 When I ran for mayor,
    0:29:31 no one asked me about it.
    0:29:32 They were talking
    0:29:33 about domestic partnerships.
    0:29:35 It was literally that moment
    0:29:38 that I walked outside,
    0:29:39 used that cell phone,
    0:29:40 called my chief of staff,
    0:29:41 and said,
    0:29:42 we need to do something about it.
    0:29:43 He goes,
    0:29:43 well, what do you mean?
    0:29:44 And I said,
    0:29:45 well, I’m going to come back
    0:29:45 tomorrow, man.
    0:29:47 Let’s do something.
    0:29:48 So I just got elected mayor
    0:29:51 and made the decision then.
    0:29:53 And it unfolded
    0:29:53 a few weeks later
    0:29:55 to start marrying
    0:29:55 same-sex couples.
    0:29:56 And we married
    0:29:57 Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin.
    0:29:58 They’d been together
    0:29:58 almost 50 years.
    0:29:59 You talk about faith,
    0:30:00 love, and devotion,
    0:30:01 constancy,
    0:30:02 what marriage should be about.
    0:30:03 They were denied
    0:30:04 the ability to marry
    0:30:05 for only one reason.
    0:30:06 They were a same-sex couple.
    0:30:07 And we decided
    0:30:09 to test the law
    0:30:11 and was told
    0:30:13 that people found out
    0:30:15 and they were not going
    0:30:16 to allow us
    0:30:17 to move forward
    0:30:18 with this marriage.
    0:30:19 We were going to do
    0:30:20 a simple ceremonial marriage
    0:30:22 and then file a lawsuit.
    0:30:23 Courts opened
    0:30:24 at 9 o’clock.
    0:30:24 They were going to do
    0:30:25 a temporary restraining order.
    0:30:27 I realized I was mayor.
    0:30:29 I could open City Hall earlier.
    0:30:31 So we opened City Hall
    0:30:31 at 8.
    0:30:34 We married Phyllis and Lyon,
    0:30:36 Phyllis and Lyon,
    0:30:38 and Del, rather.
    0:30:39 And at 9 o’clock,
    0:30:40 the courts opened
    0:30:41 and we waited
    0:30:42 for the decision
    0:30:43 and the judge said
    0:30:44 there’s no irreparable harm.
    0:30:46 There’s no reason
    0:30:47 to have a temporary restraining order,
    0:30:48 which meant
    0:30:50 that we could keep
    0:30:51 marrying same-sex couples,
    0:30:52 which was not
    0:30:54 what we had imagined.
    0:30:56 Fast forward
    0:30:57 what we call
    0:30:59 the winter of love
    0:31:00 in San Francisco.
    0:31:01 Not the summer of love.
    0:31:03 February 2004,
    0:31:05 4,036 couples
    0:31:06 from 46 states
    0:31:07 in eight countries
    0:31:08 came to San Francisco
    0:31:10 to live their lives
    0:31:10 out loud
    0:31:12 to say I do
    0:31:14 in this magical experience
    0:31:15 that just
    0:31:17 shook me to the core
    0:31:19 and changed
    0:31:21 just my relationship
    0:31:22 to my party.
    0:31:24 They were pissed.
    0:31:26 They were furious.
    0:31:27 The Democratic Party.
    0:31:27 Yes.
    0:31:29 And I got an earfall
    0:31:30 from all of them.
    0:31:32 People I adored,
    0:31:32 revered,
    0:31:33 the same people,
    0:31:34 the same people
    0:31:34 who said,
    0:31:35 all of them.
    0:31:35 I mean,
    0:31:37 this is the road advice
    0:31:37 that everyone goes,
    0:31:38 whatever you do,
    0:31:39 just do the right thing.
    0:31:40 Do what you think is right.
    0:31:41 I remember that’s what they,
    0:31:42 you know,
    0:31:43 hey, young man,
    0:31:44 congrats on being married.
    0:31:45 Just do what you think is right.
    0:31:47 You do what you think is right.
    0:31:47 How the hell?
    0:31:48 Who the hell are you?
    0:31:49 I mean,
    0:31:49 I remember those.
    0:31:51 Who the hell are you
    0:31:52 to do what you just did?
    0:31:55 And it sort of shook
    0:31:56 my confidence
    0:31:58 in this whole racket
    0:31:59 of politics.
    0:31:59 Like,
    0:32:00 what am I doing?
    0:32:01 What did I just do?
    0:32:03 But it was,
    0:32:05 it was a hell of a first impression
    0:32:06 as mayor
    0:32:08 to do that.
    0:32:09 And that sort of started
    0:32:10 my political life.
    0:32:11 When I overlap the dates here,
    0:32:14 you win your mayoral race
    0:32:15 in 2003.
    0:32:18 Your mother was getting,
    0:32:19 was sick in the years,
    0:32:20 in the lead up to that.
    0:32:21 She was diagnosed
    0:32:21 with breast cancer.
    0:32:22 Yep.
    0:32:23 So you’re contending
    0:32:25 with the woman in your life
    0:32:26 who’s clearly had
    0:32:27 the most impactful role
    0:32:28 on shaping who you are
    0:32:29 and being there for you
    0:32:30 when the odds were against you
    0:32:31 and when no one else was.
    0:32:33 In the lead up,
    0:32:34 and as your sort of
    0:32:34 political career
    0:32:35 starts to accelerate,
    0:32:37 she is suffering
    0:32:38 with breast cancer.
    0:32:38 Yep.
    0:32:40 And also suffering
    0:32:41 with her son being in politics.
    0:32:42 She did not want me
    0:32:43 to go in politics.
    0:32:43 In fact,
    0:32:46 the biggest
    0:32:49 regret she had
    0:32:50 is that I was
    0:32:51 walking down the path
    0:32:52 that my father
    0:32:53 was interested in
    0:32:54 that led to their divorce
    0:32:55 in the first place.
    0:32:57 He pursued politics
    0:32:58 and lost in two elections
    0:32:59 for state senate
    0:33:00 and for county supervisor,
    0:33:01 ironically,
    0:33:02 the seat that I held.
    0:33:03 Lost both races,
    0:33:04 was in debt,
    0:33:06 was humiliated,
    0:33:07 defeated,
    0:33:08 said he had a breakdown,
    0:33:09 and left.
    0:33:11 That’s when they got divorced
    0:33:13 and she saw me
    0:33:14 walking down his path
    0:33:16 and she loved
    0:33:17 seeing me in business.
    0:33:19 She ended up working for me
    0:33:19 as our bookkeeper
    0:33:21 and she saw my passion
    0:33:22 in the business.
    0:33:22 She said,
    0:33:23 why the hell
    0:33:24 are you getting in politics?
    0:33:25 Don’t do this to yourself.
    0:33:27 And she literally,
    0:33:28 near her deathbed,
    0:33:29 said,
    0:33:30 just please don’t do this.
    0:33:31 Don’t keep doing this.
    0:33:33 She was really upset
    0:33:34 that I ran from there.
    0:33:37 something I think about,
    0:33:38 you know,
    0:33:39 there are days
    0:33:39 where I’m like,
    0:33:40 I go,
    0:33:41 she told me so.
    0:33:42 You know,
    0:33:43 when you’re sitting there
    0:33:44 facing a recall,
    0:33:45 you’re like,
    0:33:45 told you so.
    0:33:47 A recall for anyone
    0:33:48 that doesn’t know is?
    0:33:48 No,
    0:33:48 they just,
    0:33:49 you know,
    0:33:49 in the middle of,
    0:33:49 you know,
    0:33:50 you get a four-year term
    0:33:51 and two years later,
    0:33:52 they say,
    0:33:52 you,
    0:33:53 and they get a petition
    0:33:54 and try to get rid of you.
    0:33:56 And I faced that
    0:33:57 just second time
    0:33:57 in a half century
    0:33:58 in California.
    0:34:00 I defeated it overwhelmingly.
    0:34:02 But that was a hell of a thing
    0:34:02 to experience
    0:34:04 and to see the nationalization
    0:34:05 of that recall.
    0:34:05 I mean,
    0:34:06 the entire Republican Party
    0:34:08 came out to try
    0:34:09 to take me out politically.
    0:34:10 And you think about
    0:34:11 what your mom said,
    0:34:11 you’re like,
    0:34:13 she may have been right.
    0:34:15 When did you realize
    0:34:15 that your mother
    0:34:16 wasn’t going to make it
    0:34:18 with her breast cancer?
    0:34:21 She went through,
    0:34:22 so often is the case,
    0:34:23 she fought back,
    0:34:24 it was in remission,
    0:34:25 and then boom,
    0:34:26 it hit again
    0:34:27 and it metastized
    0:34:28 and it was,
    0:34:29 and she did,
    0:34:29 it was,
    0:34:30 I’ll tell you,
    0:34:31 this I will never,
    0:34:32 ever,
    0:34:32 ever,
    0:34:33 ever recommend for anyone
    0:34:34 and this is just
    0:34:35 my own personal experience.
    0:34:37 She called me,
    0:34:38 left a voice message.
    0:34:40 Imagine getting
    0:34:41 this voice message.
    0:34:43 I was very busy
    0:34:45 doing all this stuff
    0:34:46 and obviously
    0:34:47 not attentive enough
    0:34:47 to her
    0:34:48 and she was making
    0:34:48 the point.
    0:34:49 She goes,
    0:34:49 hi honey,
    0:34:50 it’s your mother.
    0:34:51 I know you haven’t
    0:34:52 seen me in a while
    0:34:53 but next Thursday
    0:34:55 I won’t be around
    0:34:56 so you may want
    0:34:57 to come next Wednesday
    0:34:58 because it will be
    0:34:58 my last day.
    0:35:01 Literally left a voicemail
    0:35:01 like that.
    0:35:03 I called my sister,
    0:35:03 I’m like,
    0:35:03 what the hell is this?
    0:35:04 She goes,
    0:35:05 she’s crying
    0:35:05 and she said
    0:35:06 she just told me
    0:35:07 she’s going to do
    0:35:08 an assisted suicide
    0:35:09 because it’s so bad.
    0:35:11 She left a voicemail
    0:35:13 and so that next week
    0:35:14 I was there
    0:35:15 and my sister and I
    0:35:16 were in her room,
    0:35:18 doctor comes in,
    0:35:19 gives her some
    0:35:20 what turned out
    0:35:21 to be Oxycontin.
    0:35:22 I remember like early on
    0:35:23 like what are these pills?
    0:35:24 She had to take those
    0:35:25 an hour before he got there.
    0:35:26 She takes them.
    0:35:29 God is my,
    0:35:29 we’re going through
    0:35:31 fucking photos like this,
    0:35:31 man.
    0:35:32 That’s all she wanted to see.
    0:35:34 All the old photos
    0:35:35 of us growing up
    0:35:35 and we’re sitting there
    0:35:37 on my sister on the left,
    0:35:38 I’m on the right.
    0:35:39 My mom there
    0:35:40 took these pills
    0:35:41 waiting for the doctor
    0:35:43 and she’s going through
    0:35:44 all these old photo albums
    0:35:45 of us growing up
    0:35:47 talking about these moments.
    0:35:47 Yeah.
    0:35:49 Come on, man.
    0:35:50 So,
    0:35:53 yeah.
    0:35:54 And,
    0:35:54 uh,
    0:35:55 but
    0:35:57 wanted to be there for her.
    0:35:59 Doctor comes in
    0:35:59 and ministers
    0:36:02 and she starts gasping.
    0:36:03 My sister runs out.
    0:36:04 The doctor had already left
    0:36:05 and I was like,
    0:36:06 I,
    0:36:07 she’s gasping for air
    0:36:08 and I’m just
    0:36:09 sitting there
    0:36:12 and holding her hand
    0:36:12 and she’s,
    0:36:14 and her last breath
    0:36:15 and,
    0:36:15 uh,
    0:36:16 I just sat there
    0:36:18 and my sister,
    0:36:18 no one
    0:36:19 walked in,
    0:36:20 I felt like for a day,
    0:36:21 it felt like hours
    0:36:22 but it was just probably
    0:36:22 10 minutes
    0:36:24 before someone finally came in
    0:36:26 just sitting there
    0:36:27 with my mother
    0:36:27 who passed away
    0:36:28 and,
    0:36:29 uh,
    0:36:30 not realizing
    0:36:31 that moment
    0:36:32 what it represented,
    0:36:33 what it ultimately meant.
    0:36:34 Uh,
    0:36:36 I regret
    0:36:37 that was hard.
    0:36:37 I don’t,
    0:36:38 being there for
    0:36:39 assisted suicide.
    0:36:40 Uh,
    0:36:41 by the way,
    0:36:41 it’s proud,
    0:36:42 we changed the law
    0:36:43 in California.
    0:36:44 That was probably
    0:36:45 done illegally.
    0:36:46 I don’t even want to know
    0:36:46 and if you want to
    0:36:47 come after me,
    0:36:48 come after me.
    0:36:49 Um,
    0:36:50 she needed to do it.
    0:36:51 She was in so much pain,
    0:36:51 suffering,
    0:36:52 now it’s legal to do that
    0:36:53 but it wasn’t at the time
    0:36:54 when she did it.
    0:36:56 Um,
    0:36:56 and,
    0:36:56 um,
    0:36:57 so that was,
    0:36:58 uh,
    0:36:59 that was a moment
    0:37:00 and,
    0:37:00 um,
    0:37:01 you know,
    0:37:01 that was,
    0:37:02 you know,
    0:37:04 just,
    0:37:04 became mayor.
    0:37:05 It was back
    0:37:06 to just making
    0:37:07 stupid mistakes,
    0:37:07 man.
    0:37:07 You know,
    0:37:08 you’re a brand new mayor.
    0:37:10 You’re overwhelmed.
    0:37:10 You’re trying to figure
    0:37:11 yourself out.
    0:37:12 You lose your mom.
    0:37:13 No excuse.
    0:37:14 Um,
    0:37:15 it wasn’t a marriage
    0:37:16 that was going south.
    0:37:17 You know,
    0:37:17 it was a,
    0:37:18 it was,
    0:37:19 you know.
    0:37:20 What did she say to you
    0:37:20 when she,
    0:37:22 I had no idea
    0:37:23 that you sat there
    0:37:24 as she was administered
    0:37:25 the drugs
    0:37:26 that took her life.
    0:37:28 what were those conversations?
    0:37:29 What do you say
    0:37:29 to someone
    0:37:30 in such a situation
    0:37:31 where it’s the last
    0:37:32 conversations you’re having?
    0:37:34 It was,
    0:37:34 um,
    0:37:35 you know,
    0:37:35 you,
    0:37:36 you say the perfunctory
    0:37:37 things,
    0:37:37 you know,
    0:37:38 just know how much
    0:37:39 you meant to me,
    0:37:40 how much I love you,
    0:37:41 and she,
    0:37:42 um,
    0:37:43 she,
    0:37:44 all she cared about
    0:37:46 is just don’t forget me.
    0:37:47 She said that.
    0:37:48 That was the last word
    0:37:49 she said.
    0:37:50 God is my witness.
    0:37:52 Don’t forget me.
    0:37:52 God.
    0:37:54 And,
    0:37:54 uh,
    0:37:56 and one of the things
    0:37:56 I’m most proud of,
    0:37:57 my sister,
    0:37:59 we started through
    0:37:59 our Plump Jack.
    0:38:00 We started a foundation.
    0:38:02 Um,
    0:38:03 so every year
    0:38:04 we raise money
    0:38:05 to cancer research
    0:38:06 in my mom’s name.
    0:38:07 And,
    0:38:07 uh,
    0:38:09 and we’ve never forgotten her.
    0:38:10 And,
    0:38:10 uh,
    0:38:12 but she was someone
    0:38:13 that could have easily
    0:38:13 been forgotten,
    0:38:14 man.
    0:38:15 Um,
    0:38:15 she’s just,
    0:38:15 you know,
    0:38:16 sacrificed everything
    0:38:17 for two kids.
    0:38:18 She,
    0:38:19 you know,
    0:38:20 she left us
    0:38:21 her
    0:38:23 character experience,
    0:38:23 no money,
    0:38:24 nothing.
    0:38:24 I mean,
    0:38:24 she was just,
    0:38:26 she struggled her own life
    0:38:27 and,
    0:38:27 uh,
    0:38:28 just gave it all to us.
    0:38:29 And,
    0:38:29 uh,
    0:38:30 so,
    0:38:31 you know,
    0:38:31 those are,
    0:38:32 and we all have people
    0:38:33 in our lives like that.
    0:38:34 What a gift.
    0:38:34 And,
    0:38:34 uh,
    0:38:35 you know,
    0:38:35 I was blessed.
    0:38:37 Were there any words unsaid?
    0:38:38 Sometimes once people
    0:38:39 have moved on
    0:38:39 and you mature
    0:38:40 as an adult
    0:38:41 and a man,
    0:38:41 you,
    0:38:42 you see things differently
    0:38:43 and you,
    0:38:45 I mentioned the earlier
    0:38:46 being perhaps
    0:38:47 way too candid.
    0:38:47 I imagine
    0:38:49 after this is over,
    0:38:49 my folks go,
    0:38:50 what the hell were you,
    0:38:51 you know,
    0:38:51 who cares?
    0:38:52 Life’s too short.
    0:38:53 Um,
    0:38:54 but when I said,
    0:38:54 you know,
    0:38:55 when she talked about
    0:38:56 being average,
    0:38:56 I,
    0:38:57 I didn’t confront her
    0:38:57 on that.
    0:38:59 That’s just,
    0:39:00 that was for me
    0:39:02 perhaps more than her.
    0:39:03 It wasn’t about me
    0:39:05 this moment.
    0:39:06 It was about just,
    0:39:06 you know,
    0:39:08 it was so important
    0:39:09 for her to walk through
    0:39:10 all these memories.
    0:39:11 And again,
    0:39:12 that’s what it’s about,
    0:39:12 man.
    0:39:13 It’s memories,
    0:39:14 moments.
    0:39:16 It’s about nothing else.
    0:39:17 When you’re later,
    0:39:19 you win the race
    0:39:20 to become governor
    0:39:21 of San Francisco.
    0:39:22 Do you think about
    0:39:25 her?
    0:39:25 Do you think,
    0:39:26 do you wish she
    0:39:27 could have seen?
    0:39:27 Yeah.
    0:39:28 I,
    0:39:29 I wish she could see
    0:39:30 my four kids.
    0:39:31 Yeah.
    0:39:32 Yeah,
    0:39:33 yeah,
    0:39:33 yeah.
    0:39:33 Come on.
    0:39:35 I got sworn in
    0:39:35 as governor
    0:39:36 of California
    0:39:39 and my wife’s there
    0:39:40 and we got a three-year-old.
    0:39:42 He’s got his pacifier
    0:39:43 and he’s got his blanket
    0:39:44 and he,
    0:39:45 in the middle of my speech,
    0:39:47 runs up.
    0:39:49 I’m giving the speech,
    0:39:50 stressed out again.
    0:39:51 I don’t read speeches
    0:39:52 so it was a read,
    0:39:53 I had to read.
    0:39:54 So I’m like,
    0:39:55 I can’t look
    0:39:55 because I’m going to
    0:39:56 lose my sight
    0:39:56 on the,
    0:39:57 on the teleprompter.
    0:39:59 And my son runs up.
    0:40:00 My wife was nervous
    0:40:01 to run up on stage
    0:40:02 because it was like,
    0:40:03 this is a big damn deal.
    0:40:05 And he comes right up,
    0:40:06 grabs me
    0:40:09 and everyone kind of like
    0:40:10 is moving around
    0:40:10 the audience.
    0:40:10 I’m like,
    0:40:11 what do I do?
    0:40:13 And I like just instinctually
    0:40:13 lifted him
    0:40:15 and he put his head
    0:40:16 right on the side
    0:40:17 and started to fall asleep.
    0:40:19 And I read the speech
    0:40:21 with my son.
    0:40:22 No one remembers
    0:40:23 a damn word I said.
    0:40:24 I don’t remember a word.
    0:40:25 Everyone remembers
    0:40:27 what it felt like.
    0:40:28 And all I thought about
    0:40:29 at that moment,
    0:40:31 if my mom was around
    0:40:31 to see that,
    0:40:34 it wasn’t the governor.
    0:40:35 it was,
    0:40:37 it was the parent.
    0:40:38 And,
    0:40:40 yeah,
    0:40:40 sorry,
    0:40:40 ma’am.
    0:40:42 It’s unbecoming.
    0:40:43 Forgive me,
    0:40:44 but that,
    0:40:45 that,
    0:40:46 I wish,
    0:40:47 I wish she was around
    0:40:47 for them.
    0:40:48 Why?
    0:40:50 Because it’s,
    0:40:51 well,
    0:40:52 I wish I could thank her
    0:40:55 for being an extraordinary parent.
    0:40:56 I never did.
    0:40:57 I told you,
    0:40:57 I took her for granted.
    0:40:59 I never knew how hard it was
    0:41:00 until I had my own kids,
    0:41:00 but I,
    0:41:02 I think she’d be so proud
    0:41:03 of,
    0:41:03 of,
    0:41:04 of,
    0:41:05 of our,
    0:41:06 you know,
    0:41:08 nine-year-old Dutch,
    0:41:10 15-year-old Montana.
    0:41:12 I think she’d be proud of me
    0:41:13 in that respect.
    0:41:15 I think she wanted me to be happy.
    0:41:17 She wanted me to be a good husband.
    0:41:19 I got this incredible rock star wife,
    0:41:20 Jennifer.
    0:41:21 I got these four
    0:41:22 unbelievable kids,
    0:41:23 man,
    0:41:24 just filled me with joy.
    0:41:27 I struggled to be a better parent,
    0:41:28 husband,
    0:41:29 politics,
    0:41:30 you know,
    0:41:33 but that’s all she wanted for me.
    0:41:34 When you’re in the public eye,
    0:41:37 as I guess I kind of am now
    0:41:38 because people watch me a lot.
    0:41:39 A good time, man.
    0:41:41 There’s always this balance
    0:41:42 between what people see,
    0:41:44 which is a very two-dimensional thing,
    0:41:45 which is what people see of me,
    0:41:46 and then there’s the,
    0:41:47 the,
    0:41:48 the imperfect,
    0:41:49 messy home life,
    0:41:50 which I contend with every single day.
    0:41:50 Like,
    0:41:52 even on the way here this morning,
    0:41:52 I’m like,
    0:41:54 I’m going to be late for Gavin Newsom
    0:41:56 because my girlfriend’s
    0:41:57 having like period cramps
    0:41:57 and I’m like,
    0:41:58 I don’t want to leave my girlfriend,
    0:42:00 but I need to go.
    0:42:00 I’m going to be late
    0:42:01 and I’m like trying to,
    0:42:01 you know,
    0:42:03 and then we had the alarms
    0:42:03 going off in the house
    0:42:06 and then all the lights flickered
    0:42:06 because we just moved in,
    0:42:07 as you know,
    0:42:07 and then the,
    0:42:09 just craziness.
    0:42:10 And then you look at my phone
    0:42:11 and there’s business problems
    0:42:11 and then there’s my,
    0:42:13 my family problems
    0:42:13 that are going on
    0:42:14 and then I come here
    0:42:17 and I interview you.
    0:42:18 I’m sorry.
    0:42:20 I feel like I got in your way.
    0:42:20 No, no, no, no.
    0:42:21 But obviously it’s a great,
    0:42:22 it’s a tremendous honor,
    0:42:22 as you know,
    0:42:23 but it’s just,
    0:42:24 I say that because
    0:42:26 there is a behind the scenes
    0:42:27 and the behind the scenes
    0:42:28 is not as perfect
    0:42:28 as the exterior.
    0:42:29 Oh, no, man.
    0:42:30 You’re alluding to
    0:42:31 the season of your life
    0:42:33 being filled with imperfection.
    0:42:33 Yeah.
    0:42:34 Tell me about
    0:42:35 the human imperfection
    0:42:37 that was taking place
    0:42:38 behind the scenes
    0:42:38 as you were
    0:42:40 excelling professionally.
    0:42:41 I think there was
    0:42:43 a magazine
    0:42:45 The Economist
    0:42:47 did a headline
    0:42:47 that said,
    0:42:48 young man in a hurry,
    0:42:49 he wants to be governor
    0:42:51 seriously.
    0:42:52 And it wasn’t question mark,
    0:42:52 it was more,
    0:42:54 there we are,
    0:42:55 it was more like,
    0:42:56 like he’s serious,
    0:42:57 he actually thinks
    0:42:58 he could be governor.
    0:42:59 It was kind of a snarky
    0:43:00 headline piece.
    0:43:01 But the headline
    0:43:02 struck me,
    0:43:03 young man in a hurry.
    0:43:05 That’s who I was.
    0:43:06 I was the entrepreneur,
    0:43:11 just trying to make things happen,
    0:43:12 trying new things,
    0:43:13 seeing what works,
    0:43:15 having a little bit more success
    0:43:16 than failure,
    0:43:18 learning from mistakes,
    0:43:19 moving on,
    0:43:21 move pretty quickly,
    0:43:23 relatively young age.
    0:43:23 I mean,
    0:43:23 I was, I think,
    0:43:24 one of the youngest mayors
    0:43:25 in San Francisco history,
    0:43:27 you know,
    0:43:27 in my 30s.
    0:43:29 And, you know,
    0:43:30 losing my mom,
    0:43:32 a relationship with my first wife,
    0:43:35 it ended extraordinarily well.
    0:43:36 She’s, you know,
    0:43:36 I have nothing,
    0:43:38 negative to say,
    0:43:38 et cetera,
    0:43:38 but it ended.
    0:43:40 That was embarrassing.
    0:43:40 You know,
    0:43:42 it’s in the public.
    0:43:43 Everything’s in the public.
    0:43:44 I’m growing up in the public.
    0:43:45 I’m growing up with this,
    0:43:46 just bright lights.
    0:43:47 How did you fuck up?
    0:43:48 Yeah, I just,
    0:43:50 I just,
    0:43:51 I got,
    0:43:52 I didn’t,
    0:43:54 I wasn’t situationally aware.
    0:43:55 I wasn’t emotionally
    0:43:57 mature in terms of,
    0:43:59 I remember a good friend of mine,
    0:43:59 Mimi Silver,
    0:44:01 who’s just a rock star,
    0:44:01 got my,
    0:44:02 just,
    0:44:03 just got my act.
    0:44:03 She,
    0:44:05 she is the one
    0:44:05 who got me
    0:44:06 to get my act together.
    0:44:08 She goes,
    0:44:09 I said,
    0:44:10 she goes,
    0:44:11 you’re the mayor
    0:44:12 in San Francisco.
    0:44:13 I said,
    0:44:13 yeah,
    0:44:14 I know.
    0:44:14 She goes,
    0:44:14 well,
    0:44:15 then start acting like it.
    0:44:16 I said,
    0:44:16 what are you talking about?
    0:44:17 I said,
    0:44:17 I said,
    0:44:18 when I go in her,
    0:44:20 I don’t need to be in the front row.
    0:44:20 She goes,
    0:44:21 you need to be there.
    0:44:21 I said,
    0:44:22 I don’t need to,
    0:44:23 I don’t like being in the front row.
    0:44:23 I don’t like,
    0:44:24 I don’t need to be right.
    0:44:25 She says,
    0:44:25 the fucking mayor
    0:44:28 and you’ll be in the front row
    0:44:29 and you’ll have people watch you
    0:44:30 in the front row
    0:44:31 because that’s what they want
    0:44:31 from their mayor.
    0:44:31 And I’m like,
    0:44:33 I remember saying this.
    0:44:37 I said,
    0:44:37 well,
    0:44:37 no,
    0:44:38 I don’t need that.
    0:44:39 I don’t need to,
    0:44:40 I like the job.
    0:44:41 I don’t,
    0:44:42 that’s not part of the job.
    0:44:42 That’s the pad.
    0:44:44 That’s like the press conference side.
    0:44:44 I’d like,
    0:44:44 I don’t,
    0:44:46 and it was such a,
    0:44:48 she literally had such a,
    0:44:49 I remember that,
    0:44:51 I remember sitting there
    0:44:51 with dinner with her
    0:44:53 at Delancey Street
    0:44:54 when she said that to me
    0:44:55 and it sort of hit me
    0:44:56 in the core.
    0:44:57 There was,
    0:44:58 there was a lack of maturity
    0:45:01 that I was just the entrepreneur
    0:45:03 that happened to be mayor.
    0:45:05 And I,
    0:45:07 this is ironic,
    0:45:08 based on our conversation,
    0:45:09 needed to play the role
    0:45:12 a little bit more than I was.
    0:45:14 And I needed to mature
    0:45:16 and I needed to get my act together.
    0:45:17 And I,
    0:45:17 you know,
    0:45:18 and that,
    0:45:19 I went through a process.
    0:45:20 There was a couple years there,
    0:45:21 a year where,
    0:45:22 you know,
    0:45:23 a lot of things happened
    0:45:23 all at once.
    0:45:25 and I was able
    0:45:25 to get through it,
    0:45:27 get reelected.
    0:45:27 What were those things
    0:45:28 that happened all at once?
    0:45:29 Well,
    0:45:29 I mean,
    0:45:30 divorce,
    0:45:31 you lose your mom,
    0:45:31 divorce,
    0:45:34 dealing with a new job,
    0:45:35 dealing with high profile decisions
    0:45:37 that became very national.
    0:45:37 All of a sudden,
    0:45:38 I’m,
    0:45:39 you know,
    0:45:40 punching above my weight
    0:45:41 as a young elected official
    0:45:42 in ways that I,
    0:45:43 not many people
    0:45:45 didn’t necessarily imagine.
    0:45:47 Marriage quality issues
    0:45:47 being one of them,
    0:45:49 other things that I was involved in.
    0:45:51 To your point about drinking
    0:45:52 a little too much.
    0:45:54 And after the divorce,
    0:45:55 making some stupid mistakes
    0:45:57 that I owned up to
    0:45:58 and regret
    0:46:00 and having to work
    0:46:01 through all that,
    0:46:01 I mean,
    0:46:01 these are,
    0:46:02 you know,
    0:46:03 it’s around this time,
    0:46:04 you know,
    0:46:04 and,
    0:46:06 you know,
    0:46:07 what I could tell this kid.
    0:46:08 What would you tell him?
    0:46:09 Get your shit together.
    0:46:11 You’re referring to
    0:46:12 an extramarital affair
    0:46:13 which you owned up to.
    0:46:13 Yeah,
    0:46:14 I wasn’t married,
    0:46:15 but she was.
    0:46:17 And it’s funny,
    0:46:20 I’ve got a little memoir
    0:46:21 that I’m putting out,
    0:46:22 ironically called
    0:46:23 Young Man in a Hurry
    0:46:23 next year.
    0:46:24 I love the title.
    0:46:25 Relate as well.
    0:46:28 That I’m very,
    0:46:28 you know,
    0:46:30 I reflect on that
    0:46:31 and dive deeper
    0:46:32 in a very self-critical way
    0:46:33 and I hope very honest way.
    0:46:34 And I hope people
    0:46:35 can appreciate that.
    0:46:36 I think people will
    0:46:37 because I think
    0:46:38 every normal human being
    0:46:39 understands that
    0:46:40 they too are imperfect
    0:46:41 and especially when
    0:46:43 life takes hold
    0:46:44 and you’re growing
    0:46:45 and you’re learning,
    0:46:46 we all make mistakes.
    0:46:47 I’ve made mistakes
    0:46:48 and I expect to make a lot more.
    0:46:48 Yeah.
    0:46:49 But I think it’s in the admittance
    0:46:50 of those mistakes
    0:46:51 and acknowledging them
    0:46:53 that that’s where we,
    0:46:54 that’s where we find out
    0:46:55 who we actually are.
    0:46:56 Yeah.
    0:46:57 You know?
    0:46:58 And humiliated.
    0:46:59 Humiliated.
    0:47:01 I had no knowledge
    0:47:02 of any of this stuff.
    0:47:03 But so when you say humiliated,
    0:47:04 I just humiliated.
    0:47:05 My dad,
    0:47:06 he said something
    0:47:07 and I’ll tell you,
    0:47:08 it carried forward with me.
    0:47:09 He told me at the time
    0:47:11 he was so disappointing to me.
    0:47:12 And he said,
    0:47:13 you go home with the one
    0:47:14 who brought you to the dance.
    0:47:16 Fuck.
    0:47:18 And that was the impact
    0:47:20 I had on one of my friends
    0:47:21 that I, you know,
    0:47:23 because of that very,
    0:47:24 and I don’t know,
    0:47:25 it’s not a way,
    0:47:25 it’s just like the shortest,
    0:47:27 it wasn’t even a relationship,
    0:47:27 it was like just,
    0:47:29 just some stupid stuff.
    0:47:32 And I’ve just tried to,
    0:47:32 you know,
    0:47:34 the fact that we’re friends today
    0:47:35 is like really important to me,
    0:47:36 like one of the most important things,
    0:47:38 like to sort of reconcile.
    0:47:41 And that’s been really profoundly important
    0:47:43 as part of the journey.
    0:47:44 But, you know,
    0:47:45 I let him down.
    0:47:47 I embarrassed my dad.
    0:47:48 I embarrassed myself.
    0:47:50 I wasn’t myself.
    0:47:53 And I had to get my shit together
    0:47:54 and did.
    0:47:56 Just a drop of the dime.
    0:47:56 I mean,
    0:47:57 back to just Mimi Silbert,
    0:47:59 just a rock star.
    0:48:00 And she told me,
    0:48:00 you know,
    0:48:01 I remember she said,
    0:48:03 you’re coming over to see me tonight
    0:48:04 and we’re going to fix this.
    0:48:07 I’ve built companies from scratch
    0:48:08 and backed many more.
    0:48:09 And there’s a blind spot
    0:48:10 that I keep seeing
    0:48:11 in early stage founders.
    0:48:13 They spend very little time
    0:48:14 thinking about HR.
    0:48:16 And it’s not because they’re reckless
    0:48:16 or they don’t care.
    0:48:18 It’s because they’re obsessed
    0:48:20 with building their companies.
    0:48:21 And I can’t fault them for that.
    0:48:21 At that stage,
    0:48:22 you’re thinking about the product,
    0:48:24 how to attract new customers,
    0:48:25 how to grow your team,
    0:48:26 really how to survive.
    0:48:28 And HR slips down the list
    0:48:29 because it doesn’t feel urgent.
    0:48:31 But sooner or later,
    0:48:31 it is.
    0:48:33 And when things get messy,
    0:48:34 tools like our sponsor today,
    0:48:35 JustWorks,
    0:48:36 go from being a nice to have
    0:48:37 to being a necessity.
    0:48:39 Something goes sideways
    0:48:40 and you find yourself
    0:48:40 having conversations
    0:48:41 you did not see coming.
    0:48:42 This is when you learn
    0:48:43 that HR really is
    0:48:45 the infrastructure of your company.
    0:48:45 And without it,
    0:48:46 things wobble.
    0:48:47 And JustWorks
    0:48:49 stops you learning this the hard way.
    0:48:50 It takes care of the stuff
    0:48:51 that would otherwise
    0:48:52 drain your energy
    0:48:53 and your time,
    0:48:54 automating payroll,
    0:48:55 health insurance benefits.
    0:48:56 And it gives your team
    0:48:58 human support at any hour.
    0:49:00 It grows with your small business
    0:49:01 from startup through to growth,
    0:49:03 even when you start hiring
    0:49:04 team members abroad.
    0:49:05 So if you want HR support
    0:49:06 that’s there
    0:49:07 through the exciting times
    0:49:08 and the challenging times,
    0:49:10 head to JustWorks.com now.
    0:49:12 That’s JustWorks.com.
    0:49:14 At that age,
    0:49:16 you were a very young man.
    0:49:16 I mean,
    0:49:18 you still look like a young man now.
    0:49:19 God bless you, brother.
    0:49:21 But young men are in particular,
    0:49:23 have a particular set of struggles
    0:49:24 in the modern world.
    0:49:25 And you’ve used certain words
    0:49:26 that sort of pile into that.
    0:49:27 You’ve used the words purpose
    0:49:27 and meaning.
    0:49:29 And if we look at some of the stats
    0:49:31 around how young men are doing
    0:49:32 in the country,
    0:49:33 it’s not great.
    0:49:34 And even young boys
    0:49:35 are doing terribly
    0:49:36 across the world
    0:49:37 for a variety of reasons.
    0:49:38 And when we think about
    0:49:39 the political climate
    0:49:40 and what’s happened
    0:49:41 in this last election cycle
    0:49:42 and how young men
    0:49:43 are voting increasingly
    0:49:44 for a certain set of ideas,
    0:49:47 what do you think
    0:49:48 is going on with young men?
    0:49:50 And what is the solution
    0:49:50 or answer
    0:49:51 that will lead them
    0:49:52 to a better outcome?
    0:49:53 You know,
    0:49:54 I’m really proud of my wife
    0:49:57 who’s been a real leader.
    0:50:00 She’s done a half dozen documentaries.
    0:50:01 She did one
    0:50:02 that was particularly
    0:50:03 well-received
    0:50:03 called
    0:50:05 Misrepresentation
    0:50:06 about the myths
    0:50:07 and disinformation
    0:50:08 around women and girls.
    0:50:09 She followed up
    0:50:10 two years later
    0:50:11 in 2015
    0:50:13 with a documentary
    0:50:13 called
    0:50:15 The Mask You Live In
    0:50:16 about masculinity.
    0:50:18 In 2015,
    0:50:19 she was highlighting
    0:50:20 all the things,
    0:50:21 the trend lines
    0:50:22 a decade ago
    0:50:23 that are headlines today
    0:50:24 as it relates
    0:50:25 to the crisis
    0:50:26 of boys and men.
    0:50:27 And she was noting
    0:50:28 the suicide rate.
    0:50:29 She was talking about
    0:50:31 deaths of despair.
    0:50:32 She was talking about
    0:50:33 educational attainment.
    0:50:34 She was talking about
    0:50:34 all these issues
    0:50:35 that were
    0:50:37 a next-level crisis.
    0:50:38 And it was so ahead
    0:50:39 of her time
    0:50:40 in so many respects.
    0:50:42 And she’s come back
    0:50:43 to me on that
    0:50:43 over and over again,
    0:50:45 particularly with our two boys
    0:50:45 and their maturation
    0:50:46 versus my two girls
    0:50:48 and the relationship
    0:50:49 we have to
    0:50:50 our deeper understanding
    0:50:50 of how men
    0:50:52 and girls
    0:50:53 and women
    0:50:53 and boys
    0:50:54 are different.
    0:50:55 And so
    0:50:57 this is code red
    0:50:59 in this country
    0:51:00 around the world
    0:51:00 increasingly.
    0:51:01 And if it was happening
    0:51:03 to any minority group,
    0:51:04 particularly in my party,
    0:51:04 the Democratic Party,
    0:51:06 we’d be all over it.
    0:51:06 Instead,
    0:51:08 we’ve been timid about it
    0:51:09 because men have
    0:51:10 this sort of hierarchical
    0:51:12 benefits in society
    0:51:12 that go back
    0:51:13 hundreds and hundreds
    0:51:13 of years.
    0:51:15 Oh, men are really struggling.
    0:51:15 Really?
    0:51:16 You know,
    0:51:17 men still dominate
    0:51:18 in all these key positions
    0:51:19 of power and influence.
    0:51:20 But when you see
    0:51:21 all what’s happening
    0:51:21 underneath,
    0:51:23 it is a crisis.
    0:51:24 And as a consequence,
    0:51:26 the Republican Party,
    0:51:27 Donald Trump in particular,
    0:51:28 and I think in some respects
    0:51:29 what’s happening
    0:51:31 in this sort of manosphere,
    0:51:31 and I don’t mean
    0:51:32 that pejoratively,
    0:51:35 there’s been
    0:51:36 not an exploitation,
    0:51:36 at least there’s
    0:51:37 a recognition
    0:51:38 and a relationship
    0:51:39 to it
    0:51:40 that has attracted
    0:51:41 a lot of young men
    0:51:42 that are seeking
    0:51:42 meaning,
    0:51:42 purpose,
    0:51:43 and mission.
    0:51:45 And as a consequence,
    0:51:47 it’s also been weaponized,
    0:51:49 particularly by one party
    0:51:50 in a way that I don’t think
    0:51:51 is ultimately
    0:51:53 beneficial or positive.
    0:51:54 Our party needs
    0:51:55 to own up to that,
    0:51:56 and we need to address
    0:51:58 these realities.
    0:51:59 Richard Reeves
    0:52:00 is doing amazing work on it.
    0:52:01 Scott Galloway
    0:52:02 is doing amazing work on it.
    0:52:03 So many folks
    0:52:04 in this space,
    0:52:05 you know,
    0:52:07 Kat’s been doing
    0:52:08 a decade ago
    0:52:08 talking about it.
    0:52:10 But Democratic Party,
    0:52:11 my party,
    0:52:12 needs to own up
    0:52:12 in this space.
    0:52:14 And just so I’m not,
    0:52:15 you know,
    0:52:16 I’m accused of preaching
    0:52:16 and not practicing,
    0:52:18 I’ve worked for the last
    0:52:18 six months
    0:52:20 on an executive order
    0:52:21 that we’re about to release
    0:52:22 in this space
    0:52:23 that goes to issues
    0:52:24 around education.
    0:52:26 It can’t be what you can’t see
    0:52:28 in a lot of these
    0:52:29 kindergarten,
    0:52:30 elementary teachers,
    0:52:31 most of them are women.
    0:52:32 It’s so about recruiting
    0:52:33 more men
    0:52:34 to become teachers,
    0:52:36 focusing on caregiving,
    0:52:37 focusing more broadly
    0:52:39 on very intentional
    0:52:39 interventions
    0:52:40 to begin to address
    0:52:41 this crisis.
    0:52:42 The Democratic Party,
    0:52:43 I think it’s fair to say,
    0:52:44 most certainly played
    0:52:44 their hand wrong
    0:52:45 in this regard.
    0:52:46 And the word played
    0:52:47 is obviously,
    0:52:47 again,
    0:52:48 comes loaded.
    0:52:49 But very much,
    0:52:50 I think,
    0:52:52 I think,
    0:52:54 so some,
    0:52:55 I think people
    0:52:56 could fairly say
    0:52:56 to some degree
    0:52:58 turned against
    0:53:02 or misunderstood men
    0:53:03 is probably
    0:53:03 a better way
    0:53:04 of saying it,
    0:53:05 misunderstood the plight
    0:53:06 of men and boys.
    0:53:07 And
    0:53:10 the Republican Party,
    0:53:10 I think,
    0:53:11 the message
    0:53:11 that they offered,
    0:53:13 although there’s
    0:53:15 shades of,
    0:53:17 you know,
    0:53:18 behavior
    0:53:19 or
    0:53:21 narrative
    0:53:22 that is not
    0:53:22 productive,
    0:53:24 at least spoke
    0:53:25 directly to men.
    0:53:25 100%.
    0:53:26 We didn’t,
    0:53:27 what do you think
    0:53:28 the Democratic Party
    0:53:29 got wrong
    0:53:29 as it relates
    0:53:30 to appealing
    0:53:31 to young men?
    0:53:32 What’s the narrative
    0:53:33 that the Democratic Party
    0:53:34 projected but
    0:53:35 shouldn’t have?
    0:53:37 I think
    0:53:37 there was just
    0:53:38 deep lack
    0:53:39 of empathy,
    0:53:40 care,
    0:53:41 any compassion
    0:53:43 to what was going on,
    0:53:46 and recognition,
    0:53:47 even deeper understanding.
    0:53:48 I think it’s still
    0:53:48 something,
    0:53:49 I still have
    0:53:50 conversations with folks
    0:53:51 and people
    0:53:52 are very uncomfortable
    0:53:53 in my party
    0:53:54 talking about this,
    0:53:55 particularly
    0:53:56 members
    0:53:57 of my party
    0:53:58 in leadership
    0:53:58 positions,
    0:53:59 particularly women
    0:54:01 that just feel like,
    0:54:01 come on,
    0:54:02 we just went through
    0:54:02 Me Too,
    0:54:04 we’re struggling
    0:54:05 with gender equality,
    0:54:05 inequality,
    0:54:07 we still don’t have
    0:54:08 equal representations
    0:54:09 in all these CEO positions,
    0:54:10 and obviously we’re
    0:54:12 struggling in legislatures,
    0:54:13 we continue to have
    0:54:14 this glass ceiling
    0:54:14 we can’t break,
    0:54:15 and what more proof
    0:54:16 do you need
    0:54:16 than Kamala Harris
    0:54:18 and Hillary Clinton?
    0:54:20 We don’t even get paid
    0:54:21 for the same amount
    0:54:22 as men,
    0:54:23 and what the hell
    0:54:23 are you talking to me
    0:54:24 about the unique
    0:54:25 plight and challenges
    0:54:25 of men?
    0:54:26 And then you start
    0:54:26 saying,
    0:54:27 well,
    0:54:27 there’s going to be
    0:54:28 two-to-one graduates
    0:54:30 coming from our UC system
    0:54:30 here in California
    0:54:32 in the next six years.
    0:54:32 They’re like,
    0:54:33 that’s not true,
    0:54:33 and then they see
    0:54:34 the dads,
    0:54:34 women,
    0:54:35 and they go,
    0:54:35 oh,
    0:54:36 I didn’t realize that.
    0:54:37 Two-to-one women
    0:54:38 graduating versus men.
    0:54:38 Yeah,
    0:54:38 I mean,
    0:54:39 we’re on that track.
    0:54:40 I mean,
    0:54:40 we’re moving down
    0:54:41 that path.
    0:54:42 Same in the UK.
    0:54:43 You see the suicide rates
    0:54:44 are just off the chart.
    0:54:45 You see the deaths
    0:54:46 of despair,
    0:54:46 meaning overdoses,
    0:54:48 off the charts,
    0:54:49 and you see all
    0:54:50 of these indexes
    0:54:51 of unhappiness
    0:54:51 and loneliness
    0:54:53 and isolation.
    0:54:53 You see,
    0:54:53 I mean,
    0:54:54 Scott,
    0:54:55 he’s the best.
    0:54:55 I mean,
    0:54:56 talking about
    0:54:56 what this means
    0:54:57 in terms of
    0:54:58 just the inability
    0:54:59 for boys
    0:55:00 to ever become men,
    0:55:01 to be caregivers,
    0:55:03 to be those warriors,
    0:55:04 to have,
    0:55:04 you know,
    0:55:07 to be those role models,
    0:55:08 to even have
    0:55:09 the masculine traits
    0:55:10 of just being able
    0:55:11 to be engaged
    0:55:12 in a real relationship
    0:55:13 as opposed to
    0:55:14 attached to some
    0:55:15 notion of relationship
    0:55:16 online porn
    0:55:16 or something.
    0:55:17 And so,
    0:55:19 it’s a comprehensive
    0:55:21 strategy that needs
    0:55:21 to be engaged.
    0:55:22 And for me,
    0:55:23 politically,
    0:55:23 it’s,
    0:55:24 as I said,
    0:55:24 it’s code red,
    0:55:26 not just the substance,
    0:55:28 the morality of it,
    0:55:29 but also the politics
    0:55:30 attached to it
    0:55:31 because the other parties
    0:55:32 weaponize this
    0:55:34 and it’s multicultural,
    0:55:35 it’s multi-ethnic,
    0:55:35 it’s not just,
    0:55:37 it’s not just white male
    0:55:39 grievance that’s being
    0:55:40 expressed in this space.
    0:55:40 if and when
    0:55:41 you become president
    0:55:42 in 2028
    0:55:43 or another year,
    0:55:46 how is the attitude
    0:55:47 towards men
    0:55:48 going to shift
    0:55:49 and what are the
    0:55:49 practical ways
    0:55:50 that you get there
    0:55:51 towards,
    0:55:52 you know?
    0:55:52 Well,
    0:55:53 I don’t think you wait
    0:55:54 for that moment.
    0:55:55 I think we have to
    0:55:56 shape that moment.
    0:55:56 I think we have to
    0:55:57 take responsibility.
    0:55:58 We have to take account
    0:55:58 and we have to have
    0:55:59 a sober,
    0:55:59 first of all,
    0:56:00 you have to have
    0:56:01 a deeper sober reflection
    0:56:01 of why the hell
    0:56:02 the Democratic Party
    0:56:05 is at 27%
    0:56:05 in polls
    0:56:06 just a few months ago.
    0:56:06 I mean,
    0:56:07 it’s a toxic party
    0:56:08 in terms of its brand.
    0:56:09 Why?
    0:56:10 Exactly.
    0:56:11 We need to understand
    0:56:11 that.
    0:56:13 I can give you 25 theories.
    0:56:14 Can you give me a super,
    0:56:15 because I’m not a politician
    0:56:15 so I don’t understand
    0:56:16 a lot of the political talk,
    0:56:17 but like,
    0:56:18 that is staggering.
    0:56:19 Yes.
    0:56:20 And why did it happen?
    0:56:21 Yes.
    0:56:23 Thank you.
    0:56:24 No,
    0:56:25 but that’s the question.
    0:56:26 How did that happen?
    0:56:27 It’s one of the reasons
    0:56:28 I started my own podcast.
    0:56:29 It was part of that exploration.
    0:56:29 Again,
    0:56:31 back to humility and grace,
    0:56:31 two words I’ll use
    0:56:33 over and over and over
    0:56:33 and over again.
    0:56:35 Seek first to understand
    0:56:36 before you’re understood.
    0:56:38 I listened to all the punditry
    0:56:40 hours after the election results.
    0:56:40 Yeah.
    0:56:42 And everyone was an expert.
    0:56:42 I’m like,
    0:56:43 that’s amazing.
    0:56:43 You’re an expert.
    0:56:44 It was Israel,
    0:56:45 for sure.
    0:56:45 No,
    0:56:46 it was inflation,
    0:56:46 for sure.
    0:56:47 No,
    0:56:48 it was interest rates,
    0:56:48 for sure.
    0:56:49 No,
    0:56:49 it was incumbency,
    0:56:51 for sure.
    0:56:51 No,
    0:56:53 it was woke,
    0:56:53 for sure.
    0:56:54 it was trans,
    0:56:55 for sure.
    0:56:56 Everyone was for sure.
    0:56:58 They knew exactly what it was.
    0:56:58 I’m like,
    0:56:59 this is amazing.
    0:57:00 Everyone just knows
    0:57:00 what’s going on.
    0:57:01 Meanwhile,
    0:57:02 I’m like 20 pages in
    0:57:03 writing this down,
    0:57:04 saying,
    0:57:04 oh,
    0:57:05 it’s about loss of management.
    0:57:05 Oh,
    0:57:05 no,
    0:57:07 it’s about the management.
    0:57:07 No,
    0:57:07 it’s about,
    0:57:09 it was about Joe Rogan.
    0:57:09 We didn’t go on Joe.
    0:57:09 Oh,
    0:57:10 for sure.
    0:57:11 It was about,
    0:57:12 she didn’t,
    0:57:12 you know,
    0:57:13 she didn’t say this,
    0:57:13 or she,
    0:57:14 it was the view,
    0:57:15 for sure.
    0:57:16 She could have separated
    0:57:16 from Biden.
    0:57:16 No,
    0:57:17 it was a,
    0:57:19 and then I’m like,
    0:57:19 well,
    0:57:19 wait a second.
    0:57:25 And so,
    0:57:26 that became my own journey
    0:57:27 back to the entrepreneur,
    0:57:28 trying to iterate
    0:57:30 and deciding to get some folks
    0:57:32 that I vehemently disagree on
    0:57:33 with on my,
    0:57:34 on a new podcast,
    0:57:35 Charlie Kirk,
    0:57:35 because,
    0:57:35 you know,
    0:57:36 for sure,
    0:57:37 he was successful
    0:57:39 in convincing a lot of young men
    0:57:40 to turn out in record numbers
    0:57:40 for Trump.
    0:57:41 I wanted to learn about that.
    0:57:42 Back to this notion
    0:57:43 of success leaves clues.
    0:57:45 I want to pick his brain.
    0:57:46 What are you doing right,
    0:57:47 man?
    0:57:48 Show some humility
    0:57:50 and grace as it relates to
    0:57:52 not trying to be argumentative
    0:57:53 in the interview.
    0:57:53 just,
    0:57:54 I’m trying to pick,
    0:57:55 I want to know
    0:57:57 why you’re so successful.
    0:57:58 That offended a lot of people.
    0:57:59 What did you discover?
    0:58:02 He’s got a plan.
    0:58:03 He’s executing a plan.
    0:58:04 He’s got a strategy.
    0:58:05 He’s got a date
    0:58:07 that he’s identified
    0:58:09 with a goal attached to it.
    0:58:10 He’s got a dream
    0:58:10 with a deadline.
    0:58:11 He’s there
    0:58:13 in places people
    0:58:14 don’t expect him to be.
    0:58:15 He’s meeting with folks
    0:58:16 without any filter.
    0:58:18 He’s willing to confront people
    0:58:18 he disagrees with
    0:58:19 and agrees with.
    0:58:21 He’s willing to be out there
    0:58:21 on the field.
    0:58:23 He’s organized
    0:58:23 organized
    0:58:24 a construct
    0:58:26 and he’s been very deliberative
    0:58:27 of building a sense
    0:58:28 of community
    0:58:30 and this notion of community.
    0:58:31 We all want to be connected
    0:58:33 to something bigger
    0:58:33 than ourselves.
    0:58:35 It’s a big part of this as well,
    0:58:36 part of the MAGA movement.
    0:58:37 And particularly
    0:58:39 with people feeling disconnected,
    0:58:40 you’re naturally
    0:58:40 going to want to find
    0:58:41 your way back
    0:58:42 to something bigger
    0:58:43 than themselves
    0:58:44 that sort of moors you
    0:58:45 and gives you a sense
    0:58:45 of purpose
    0:58:46 and meaning as well.
    0:58:48 And when people are lost,
    0:58:49 they do go in search
    0:58:50 of someone
    0:58:50 who resonates with them
    0:58:51 and someone who speaks
    0:58:52 directly to their plight.
    0:58:54 And my observation
    0:58:55 as someone that’s not an American,
    0:58:57 when I think about someone
    0:58:58 like Charlie Kirk
    0:58:59 versus Kamala Harris,
    0:59:01 it’s the absolute
    0:59:02 opposite approach.
    0:59:03 Kamala Harris,
    0:59:04 lots of people say
    0:59:05 she avoided going on Rogan.
    0:59:06 She wanted him to fly to her.
    0:59:07 She wanted Rogan
    0:59:08 to fly to her.
    0:59:09 She was going to give him
    0:59:11 a tiny short time window.
    0:59:12 It was probably going to be
    0:59:13 a bit sanitized
    0:59:14 in all respects.
    0:59:16 And then Charlie Kirk
    0:59:16 sits on campuses
    0:59:17 across the US
    0:59:19 and has students come up
    0:59:20 and ask him any question.
    0:59:22 And his response is,
    0:59:23 he shows you his response
    0:59:24 to his credit
    0:59:28 and he doesn’t care
    0:59:29 about sanitization
    0:59:30 or being politically correct.
    0:59:30 Correct.
    0:59:32 And he puts it on YouTube
    0:59:33 for hours and hours
    0:59:34 and hours and hours.
    0:59:36 And I think in a glass box world
    0:59:39 where we get to see inside now
    0:59:40 because of technology,
    0:59:41 the black box approach
    0:59:42 where your PR team
    0:59:44 tries to paint an image
    0:59:46 on the outside is over.
    0:59:46 And we saw it
    0:59:47 in the selection cycle.
    0:59:48 And you’re doing,
    0:59:48 you’re leading the,
    0:59:49 I have to give you credit,
    0:59:50 you are leading the charge there
    0:59:51 because I can’t think
    0:59:53 of another key political figure
    0:59:55 globally who has started
    0:59:56 a podcast where you literally
    0:59:58 invite the other side on.
    1:00:00 So you’re doing,
    1:00:01 I think you’re playing
    1:00:02 the glass box approach.
    1:00:03 I love the way
    1:00:04 you describe that
    1:00:06 and everything you said
    1:00:07 resonated with me.
    1:00:10 Had Steve Bannon on.
    1:00:11 Yeah.
    1:00:13 which is just,
    1:00:13 you know,
    1:00:14 itself was interesting.
    1:00:15 Look,
    1:00:18 these folks exist
    1:00:18 and persist.
    1:00:20 You can deny it.
    1:00:21 My party can deny it
    1:00:22 at its own peril.
    1:00:22 Back to your point
    1:00:23 about what the hell
    1:00:24 has happened to my party.
    1:00:25 And so trying to understand that,
    1:00:26 trying to unpack that.
    1:00:27 But, you know,
    1:00:28 it’s interesting.
    1:00:30 I think, you know,
    1:00:31 Kamala is an old friend of mine.
    1:00:32 I don’t want to get into Kamala.
    1:00:33 And I say old friend
    1:00:34 and people roll their eyes
    1:00:34 in politics.
    1:00:35 People say, you know,
    1:00:36 old friend.
    1:00:37 That means they’re frenemies.
    1:00:37 It’s not.
    1:00:38 But we go back
    1:00:39 before we were both in politics.
    1:00:40 We both share that.
    1:00:41 Willie Brown,
    1:00:42 the former mayor,
    1:00:43 in common in terms of a relationship
    1:00:44 that we both had.
    1:00:46 And as a consequence
    1:00:46 of the relationship
    1:00:47 we had with him,
    1:00:49 we were able to get to know
    1:00:49 one another
    1:00:50 as sort of this cohort.
    1:00:54 And I think a lot about,
    1:00:54 you know,
    1:00:57 what we’ve just gone through.
    1:00:58 I wish,
    1:00:59 I’d love to see Kamala
    1:01:01 on your show.
    1:01:02 I’d love to see her
    1:01:04 picture of mom and dad.
    1:01:05 And I know her as well
    1:01:06 or better than most.
    1:01:07 Yeah.
    1:01:08 But I would love to see
    1:01:09 that side of her.
    1:01:10 I would.
    1:01:11 So this notion of,
    1:01:11 what’d you say,
    1:01:12 glass box?
    1:01:13 Glass box versus black box.
    1:01:14 Black box.
    1:01:16 Hey,
    1:01:18 I’m on here for a reason.
    1:01:19 Yeah.
    1:01:20 I just, you know,
    1:01:22 it’s like I’m out of any excuse.
    1:01:22 Look,
    1:01:23 you are who you are.
    1:01:25 And let it all out there.
    1:01:26 And I think people,
    1:01:29 I think we claim
    1:01:30 we long for authenticity.
    1:01:32 I still mostly believe that.
    1:01:34 Sometimes I question that
    1:01:36 because people want you
    1:01:36 to be your authentic self,
    1:01:37 but they’re like,
    1:01:37 well,
    1:01:38 don’t swear as much
    1:01:39 or be your authentic self,
    1:01:40 but don’t be so emotional
    1:01:41 or be your authentic self,
    1:01:42 but there’s a but.
    1:01:44 But I think at the end of the day,
    1:01:45 I think we’re,
    1:01:46 we’ve crossed that.
    1:01:47 I think we’re on the other side.
    1:01:50 People just want more of you,
    1:01:51 whoever the hell you are.
    1:01:52 Regardless of what it is.
    1:01:54 Because even the crazy thing
    1:01:55 I observe about Trump
    1:01:59 is even the imperfect things he says
    1:02:00 that would once upon a time
    1:02:02 have revolted some people
    1:02:03 and would have had adverse reactions.
    1:02:07 The fact that he’s willing to say them
    1:02:09 creates the impression in my mind
    1:02:11 that I know who he is.
    1:02:11 Yeah.
    1:02:13 And you don’t have to like someone,
    1:02:15 but if you trust that you know who they are,
    1:02:17 then you feel,
    1:02:18 I think,
    1:02:21 safer in predicting what they’ll do.
    1:02:23 Now, if I don’t see Kamala sat on Joe Rogan
    1:02:24 or someone like this,
    1:02:26 getting to know her unfiltered,
    1:02:26 you know,
    1:02:27 your team didn’t tell me this.
    1:02:29 Your team didn’t give me any parameters.
    1:02:30 They didn’t say,
    1:02:31 you can’t ask him about this.
    1:02:32 Don’t talk about this.
    1:02:33 There was no parameters.
    1:02:34 At least people will know who you are.
    1:02:35 Yeah.
    1:02:37 And I think most people don’t.
    1:02:38 They see me as sort of,
    1:02:38 you know,
    1:02:39 a slick guy that,
    1:02:40 you know,
    1:02:41 was like,
    1:02:43 they think I grew up with a trust fund.
    1:02:44 Everything was handed to them.
    1:02:46 People don’t know my entrepreneurial background.
    1:02:47 I don’t think they,
    1:02:48 they,
    1:02:48 they,
    1:02:49 they believe what they,
    1:02:52 they may have seen on Fox news out here or,
    1:02:52 you know,
    1:02:55 one American news and the weaponization of that.
    1:02:55 And so,
    1:02:56 you know,
    1:02:56 I just,
    1:02:57 it’s critical.
    1:02:58 I think for our party,
    1:02:58 generally,
    1:03:00 I think for both parties now,
    1:03:00 just,
    1:03:01 you’ve just got to get out of that bubble.
    1:03:02 I give Trump,
    1:03:03 to your point,
    1:03:04 credit in that respect in every way,
    1:03:05 shape,
    1:03:05 form,
    1:03:06 criticize him for many things.
    1:03:08 You can’t criticize him for accessibility,
    1:03:12 for at least appearing to be authentic in terms of his approach,
    1:03:14 his willingness to confront and engage.
    1:03:15 And I,
    1:03:16 I think that’s very refreshing.
    1:03:18 How do you think America’s doing?
    1:03:19 I think we’re struggling.
    1:03:20 Our identity,
    1:03:22 I think we’re,
    1:03:22 you know,
    1:03:23 Trump has made it,
    1:03:25 made us feel free to shove again.
    1:03:28 It’s not our better selves.
    1:03:30 You know,
    1:03:30 the,
    1:03:33 the sort of John Meacham language,
    1:03:33 you know,
    1:03:34 the soul of America is,
    1:03:35 is,
    1:03:35 is,
    1:03:36 is struggling.
    1:03:38 And I really worry about our institutions.
    1:03:39 I worry about our democracy.
    1:03:41 I worry about neighbors,
    1:03:42 turning on neighbors,
    1:03:45 people forgetting the universal truths that we all want to be loved.
    1:03:46 We all need to be loved.
    1:03:49 I talked about everybody needing to be connected.
    1:03:50 We also need to be respected.
    1:03:52 And I think people are talking down to each other,
    1:03:54 talking past each other.
    1:03:54 It’s again,
    1:03:56 why I want platform people.
    1:03:59 I disagree with a new Gingrich on former speaker Gingrich,
    1:04:01 who led my recall effort against me.
    1:04:01 You know,
    1:04:02 I just,
    1:04:05 I’m trying to just find some balance in that respect.
    1:04:06 because you know,
    1:04:08 there are good people that vehemently disagree with us.
    1:04:11 I don’t know that it benefits any of us to,
    1:04:14 to demean or belittle folks.
    1:04:15 That’s my thing with Trump.
    1:04:17 He attacks vulnerable communities.
    1:04:17 My mom,
    1:04:18 her,
    1:04:19 what her real,
    1:04:23 early indelible inspiration for me in terms of one of those two,
    1:04:24 three jobs.
    1:04:27 she had wasn’t just working as a waitress and doing the bookkeeping,
    1:04:31 but she worked for aid to adoption of special kids with the Debalt family that
    1:04:35 had kids with intellectual and physical disabilities.
    1:04:40 And I remember spending time with these kids and I hate bullies.
    1:04:41 I mean,
    1:04:42 forgive the word hate.
    1:04:43 I know I just,
    1:04:44 I dislike,
    1:04:44 I hate bullies.
    1:04:47 I don’t like people demeaning other people.
    1:04:48 I don’t like people scapegoating,
    1:04:50 scapegoating vulnerable communities.
    1:04:53 My why is standing up for ideals and striking out against injustice.
    1:04:56 It defines nine out of 10 things for me,
    1:04:57 personal,
    1:04:58 professional,
    1:04:59 standing up for ideals,
    1:05:00 striking out against injustice.
    1:05:02 And it’s just to me,
    1:05:07 unjust to see people demeaned and belittled and to use,
    1:05:11 to see vulnerable communities used as pawns to talk about,
    1:05:11 you know,
    1:05:12 alligator,
    1:05:18 whatever in Florida and talk about immigrants and demeaning in ways.
    1:05:20 And they have to zig and zag if they want to,
    1:05:24 avoid getting killed by an alligator or something or mocking people with
    1:05:25 disabilities.
    1:05:26 That’s where I,
    1:05:27 that’s where I get,
    1:05:29 that’s where I stand firm.
    1:05:31 And right now,
    1:05:32 my biggest fear,
    1:05:33 you asked about how,
    1:05:34 where our country is.
    1:05:40 I feel like Trump has opened that Overton window in a way that I very
    1:05:44 concerned about our ability to get back to find our better humanity.
    1:05:46 Who does Trump care about?
    1:05:47 Himself,
    1:05:47 period,
    1:05:47 full stop.
    1:05:49 It’s not complicated.
    1:05:50 He doesn’t,
    1:05:52 he doesn’t care if he’s the heel or the hero,
    1:05:53 as long as he’s the star.
    1:05:53 It’s,
    1:05:54 I mean,
    1:05:54 it’s,
    1:05:56 and that’s just anyone that’s spent time with them.
    1:05:58 I spend time with as much or more than any Democrat,
    1:06:00 certainly any democratic governor in the country,
    1:06:00 period,
    1:06:01 full stop.
    1:06:02 I did it through COVID.
    1:06:02 My,
    1:06:05 his first term and certainly even in the second term.
    1:06:06 And what surprised you?
    1:06:06 Nothing.
    1:06:09 The surprise me now is that he’s a very different guy than he was in the
    1:06:10 first term.
    1:06:11 he’s,
    1:06:14 there’s no limits now.
    1:06:15 It’s,
    1:06:17 there’s a megalomania there.
    1:06:18 Megalomania.
    1:06:20 He feels no limits now.
    1:06:23 And you feel that in every way.
    1:06:26 He can say and do whatever the hell he wants.
    1:06:27 And there’s no oversight.
    1:06:28 There’s no advising consent.
    1:06:30 There’s no co-equal branch of government.
    1:06:33 And the speaker of our house of representatives completely abdicated that.
    1:06:34 The question is,
    1:06:36 do the courts hold up or are we the people?
    1:06:41 And I’ll tell you that we’re celebrating our 250th anniversary of the founding
    1:06:41 fathers,
    1:06:43 the best of the Roman Republic,
    1:06:43 Greek democracy.
    1:06:44 And,
    1:06:45 and you know,
    1:06:47 this notion of,
    1:06:48 of system of checks and balances,
    1:06:49 popular sovereignty.
    1:06:51 And I think it’s,
    1:06:52 it’s on life support now.
    1:06:54 And I don’t say that lightly.
    1:06:56 I say that very thoughtfully.
    1:06:59 And I say that as a guy that’s watched the president of the United States,
    1:07:01 not send military in his first term,
    1:07:04 or is the first six months anywhere in the world,
    1:07:09 except to an American city where he’s 5,000 military in the streets of Los Angeles,
    1:07:11 a war within.
    1:07:16 So I say this very soberly and mindful of the moment we are in American history.
    1:07:19 Do you think he wants to see you fail?
    1:07:23 I think he wants to take me out and down at the same time.
    1:07:26 I think he enjoys the sparring with me.
    1:07:26 I think he,
    1:07:28 I think he thrives on it.
    1:07:29 I know he does.
    1:07:31 Because he calls you Gavin new scum.
    1:07:31 Yes.
    1:07:32 But then meets with you privately.
    1:07:33 Yeah.
    1:07:34 And what are those meetings like?
    1:07:35 Unbelievably cordial.
    1:07:35 Unbelievably,
    1:07:38 it drives people crazy when I say this,
    1:07:39 but I’d be lying if I didn’t say it.
    1:07:40 Every time I have a conversation,
    1:07:44 including the night before he quote unquote,
    1:07:46 federalized the National Guard.
    1:07:48 We had an unbelievably good conversation.
    1:07:50 And we were going back and forth.
    1:07:50 He said,
    1:07:51 use this cell phone.
    1:07:52 Keep,
    1:07:53 keep calling me on the cell phone directly.
    1:07:54 You need anything?
    1:07:54 Call me.
    1:07:55 You need anything?
    1:07:56 Call me.
    1:07:57 Which is an amazing final statement.
    1:07:58 As I hung up,
    1:08:00 only to read eight hours later,
    1:08:02 that at new scum,
    1:08:03 I read him the riot act,
    1:08:04 which he never did.
    1:08:04 Completely made,
    1:08:06 100% made it up.
    1:08:08 And then federalizes the guard.
    1:08:10 It’s a,
    1:08:11 it’s a game.
    1:08:12 It’s a show.
    1:08:13 It’s a dangerous game.
    1:08:16 And it’s a very exhausting show.
    1:08:19 And it’s becoming derivative and,
    1:08:21 and more dangerous.
    1:08:23 Isn’t this just how politics goes in America?
    1:08:24 Shouldn’t.
    1:08:24 No,
    1:08:25 it shouldn’t.
    1:08:25 Look,
    1:08:28 I used to have my beef with George W. Bush,
    1:08:29 George H. W. Bush.
    1:08:29 We,
    1:08:31 we’d have our beefs on the other side.
    1:08:32 Republicans,
    1:08:34 certainly with Clinton or Obama,
    1:08:35 or even Biden.
    1:08:36 Longed for those days.
    1:08:37 University.
    1:08:39 I’d go in the office of Ronald Reagan’s old office,
    1:08:40 Governor Ronald Reagan.
    1:08:41 That’s my old office.
    1:08:43 his governor of California.
    1:08:43 I mean,
    1:08:44 you know,
    1:08:44 his,
    1:08:46 his last speech in the Oval Office,
    1:08:49 his last speech was about the life force of new Americans.
    1:08:50 Lady Liberty’s torch.
    1:08:52 Our better angels.
    1:08:52 I mean,
    1:08:54 what happened to that Republican party?
    1:08:57 And this is different.
    1:08:58 This is darkness.
    1:08:59 Really?
    1:09:00 Darkness.
    1:09:02 Because I hear this every election cycle.
    1:09:02 No,
    1:09:03 this is,
    1:09:04 this is,
    1:09:04 we’re,
    1:09:06 we’re only six months in.
    1:09:11 The vandalization that he’s done to this democracy and institutions.
    1:09:12 I mean,
    1:09:13 eliminating oversight.
    1:09:15 I’m not just talking about a co-equal branch of government.
    1:09:17 What does that mean for the average person that doesn’t,
    1:09:19 it means there’s no,
    1:09:23 he’s eliminated the inspector general’s auditing capacity.
    1:09:27 He’s going after political opponents,
    1:09:30 removing them from key positions of power and influence and putting in
    1:09:32 acolytes,
    1:09:34 putting out people that just do his bidding.
    1:09:37 He’s pushing the boundaries on the rule of law.
    1:09:39 He’s threatening to recall,
    1:09:41 not just people he disagrees with.
    1:09:42 He wanted my arrest.
    1:09:44 Remember the president of the United States said,
    1:09:45 Newsom should be arrested.
    1:09:45 They said,
    1:09:46 on what grounds?
    1:09:47 He got elected.
    1:09:49 Said he doesn’t like the fact that his political enemy got elected.
    1:09:51 It means he’s not,
    1:09:53 he doesn’t say that lightly.
    1:09:54 And you know,
    1:09:56 once the mind is stretched,
    1:09:57 it never goes back to its original form.
    1:09:59 So every time he does this,
    1:10:01 he’s sort of testing these boundaries.
    1:10:05 And this is what makes me more concerned.
    1:10:06 I’ll give you a proof point.
    1:10:07 God is my witness.
    1:10:08 We’re sitting here.
    1:10:11 When we do this today on this podcast,
    1:10:11 we just,
    1:10:15 I just read this morning that Donald Trump was on the phone with the Texas
    1:10:16 legislature.
    1:10:20 And they’re going through a redistricting thing to basically get five more
    1:10:25 seats for the midterms because they’re likely to lose the midterms.
    1:10:30 And Trump is like lose power unless they can change the districts and rig
    1:10:31 the game.
    1:10:32 So he stays in power.
    1:10:35 Do you think he’s going to try and stay in power?
    1:10:39 When people close to Donald Trump,
    1:10:43 when people close to Donald Trump send the governor of California,
    1:10:46 a hat that says Trump 2028.
    1:10:48 They’re not being around.
    1:10:51 They sent you a hat saying Trump 2028.
    1:10:52 2028.
    1:10:53 They’re not screwing around.
    1:10:57 I sat in the oval office for 90 minutes with Donald Trump.
    1:10:59 First democratic governor to do that.
    1:11:01 And he was looked and he looked around and said,
    1:11:01 Hey,
    1:11:02 so he’s behind you.
    1:11:02 I said,
    1:11:03 I looked around the pictures.
    1:11:04 I’m like FDR.
    1:11:05 And I literally turned.
    1:11:05 I’m like,
    1:11:06 Oh,
    1:11:06 seriously?
    1:11:07 He goes,
    1:11:07 yeah.
    1:11:08 Cause what do you think?
    1:11:09 Three terms,
    1:11:10 four terms.
    1:11:10 I said,
    1:11:11 Oh,
    1:11:11 come on.
    1:11:14 And then he just starts laughing because he’s lighting.
    1:11:15 He’s having fun.
    1:11:16 But again,
    1:11:18 he’s throwing things out.
    1:11:19 He’s yes.
    1:11:20 He’s iterating.
    1:11:22 Do you think he would stay for a third,
    1:11:22 fourth?
    1:11:23 I mean,
    1:11:23 he,
    1:11:26 I think still he’s the guy that tried to wreck this country,
    1:11:28 try to light our democracy on fire.
    1:11:29 He said it was,
    1:11:30 it was a day of love,
    1:11:31 January 6th,
    1:11:33 so much so that he literally,
    1:11:34 as you know,
    1:11:36 pardoned everybody that participated in that melee.
    1:11:38 I mean,
    1:11:39 that happened.
    1:11:46 That is grounds in and of itself to question whether or not I’m overstating anything.
    1:11:48 And that was first week in office.
    1:11:49 It’s,
    1:11:49 it’s,
    1:11:50 I mean,
    1:11:50 this is shock and awe.
    1:11:57 We have people in masks going to car washes without identifying and people are disappearing.
    1:12:00 In the streets of America today,
    1:12:05 thousands of people disappearing on the streets of America today based on what you look like,
    1:12:06 your skin color.
    1:12:08 In the streets of America today,
    1:12:09 that’s happening.
    1:12:10 That is not normal.
    1:12:16 And every day he’s able to shapeshift and distract us to move someplace else.
    1:12:16 I’ve got a big announcement,
    1:12:18 huge announcement on Putin.
    1:12:21 I’ll do major sanctions in 50 days.
    1:12:21 Really?
    1:12:22 I mean,
    1:12:24 this ability to distract,
    1:12:24 it’s serious.
    1:12:27 What lies underneath is serious.
    1:12:30 And I don’t think I’m exaggerating it.
    1:12:31 And I’m very,
    1:12:35 very cautious when it comes to this kind of language,
    1:12:36 because you’re right.
    1:12:38 When you tend to say,
    1:12:38 you know,
    1:12:39 you know,
    1:12:41 start crying wolf here.
    1:12:47 I don’t think we’re overstating the seriousness that we have to push back.
    1:12:50 The seriousness of purpose to which this moment needs to be met.
    1:12:50 That is.
    1:12:53 Really?
    1:12:54 This is not just another,
    1:12:54 you know,
    1:12:56 president comes in,
    1:12:57 they do a bunch of changes,
    1:12:58 a bunch of executive orders,
    1:13:00 and then they leave in three and a half years.
    1:13:02 He tried to stay in the office.
    1:13:05 He called the elections chief in Georgia and asked,
    1:13:07 I just need a few thousand votes.
    1:13:08 He wasn’t walking around.
    1:13:10 He was not joking about that.
    1:13:12 He was dead serious about that.
    1:13:14 And had they found that,
    1:13:16 he would have rigged his own election.
    1:13:18 You serious?
    1:13:19 What more evidence do you need?
    1:13:22 He’s quite literally,
    1:13:24 they’re so concerned about taking over the house.
    1:13:26 Now Democrats were on path to do it.
    1:13:28 They have to re rig the game.
    1:13:31 And you think if they don’t take back the house of representatives,
    1:13:35 they won’t move from some form of voter suppression,
    1:13:37 the likes of which we’ve never seen in this country,
    1:13:39 threats of martial law.
    1:13:43 What do you think this whole experiment with 5,000 military weeks and weeks
    1:13:44 and weeks doing nothing,
    1:13:45 by the way,
    1:13:46 they’re sitting in the armory.
    1:13:47 They’re doing nothing.
    1:13:49 They’re there for show,
    1:13:53 but he’s pushing the boundaries of what they’re capable of doing,
    1:13:55 testing the courts and the constitution.
    1:13:57 That’s for a larger purpose.
    1:13:58 And I’m not trying to be,
    1:13:59 you know,
    1:14:00 I’m not trying to be,
    1:14:04 it may not be intentional purpose yet,
    1:14:07 but they’ll place an opportunity
    1:14:10 to utilize the lessons learned here today
    1:14:14 to extend their reach and power tomorrow.
    1:14:15 And I very much,
    1:14:16 yes,
    1:14:19 I worry about our democracy in three and a half years.
    1:14:23 And I worry about that election if they maintain their power.
    1:14:24 in the House of Representatives.
    1:14:26 I’m that deeply concerned,
    1:14:26 dead serious.
    1:14:28 On the balance of probability,
    1:14:30 do you think it’s likely Trump will stay,
    1:14:32 try and stay in office in 2028?
    1:14:34 On the balance of probability,
    1:14:34 no.
    1:14:35 No,
    1:14:35 okay.
    1:14:36 But I can see a scenario,
    1:14:38 but not on the balance of probability.
    1:14:40 And that’s on the basis of one thing,
    1:14:40 time of life.
    1:14:41 Oh,
    1:14:42 okay.
    1:14:43 If he was 69,
    1:14:43 not 79.
    1:14:46 look,
    1:14:47 he,
    1:14:48 this is the great grift.
    1:14:50 He’s,
    1:14:52 he did what he never did in the first term.
    1:14:53 He played in the margins.
    1:14:56 He was able to take advantage of his brand and his businesses
    1:14:58 and make a few bucks here and there,
    1:14:59 but not the money he’s making now.
    1:15:00 I mean,
    1:15:01 the crypto,
    1:15:02 everything he’s doing.
    1:15:03 I mean,
    1:15:03 I mean,
    1:15:05 the kids now selling cell phones,
    1:15:06 the whole thing,
    1:15:07 monetizing everything,
    1:15:09 coming out with new brands and new plans.
    1:15:10 I mean,
    1:15:10 he,
    1:15:13 he finally is doing what he didn’t do.
    1:15:16 the first term is now is he’s president of the United States,
    1:15:17 but now he’s going to make a fortune.
    1:15:19 So when he’s no longer president,
    1:15:22 he’ll have a $400 million plan that has a billion dollars of upgrades on it.
    1:15:25 That’ll be donated to the foundation that he can use for the rest of his life.
    1:15:26 Thank you to the Qataris.
    1:15:28 He will have billions and billions of dollars.
    1:15:33 He’ll make the vast majority of his wealth in just a few years as president of the United States.
    1:15:35 He will set himself up in that respect.
    1:15:39 He’ll have hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of excess campaign cash,
    1:15:42 which he’ll be able to use for whatever luxurious lifestyle he ever needs.
    1:15:49 And I imagine that may satisfy him as long as he gets his person in to replace him
    1:15:51 so they can continue that grift going forward.
    1:15:53 The American people elected him.
    1:15:54 They said,
    1:15:55 that’s our guy.
    1:15:58 That’s why my party needs to own up to that.
    1:16:00 And this is existential.
    1:16:02 We need to do better and we need to,
    1:16:03 I’m,
    1:16:04 that’s correct.
    1:16:06 Are you faithful,
    1:16:12 hopeful that the democratic party are going to wake up in time to field a serious campaign that can
    1:16:15 compete with that very sort of dominant prevailing narrative?
    1:16:17 I think it starts yesterday.
    1:16:20 It’s not about the guy or gal on the white horse to come save the day.
    1:16:22 It’s not about 2028.
    1:16:23 It’s about the midterms,
    1:16:24 which we just talked about.
    1:16:27 It’s also about what happens to me now in the midterms.
    1:16:28 It’s about the rule of law.
    1:16:28 It’s about courts.
    1:16:29 It’s about governors.
    1:16:30 It’s about states.
    1:16:31 It’s about mayors.
    1:16:32 It’s about we,
    1:16:32 the people,
    1:16:33 citizens.
    1:16:33 I mean,
    1:16:34 look,
    1:16:36 I was inspired in the No Kings Day.
    1:16:37 I mean,
    1:16:39 you guys know a little bit about Kings.
    1:16:39 I mean,
    1:16:40 the No Kings Day,
    1:16:42 5 million people showed up on Trump’s birthday.
    1:16:42 That gave me hope.
    1:16:45 Which was a sort of a protest against authoritarianism.
    1:16:46 Against,
    1:16:46 against,
    1:16:46 yeah,
    1:16:47 it was,
    1:16:47 look,
    1:16:48 you know,
    1:16:49 it was Justice Bray and I said,
    1:16:50 in a democracy,
    1:16:52 the most important office is not office of president,
    1:16:53 governor,
    1:16:53 mayor,
    1:16:54 office of citizen.
    1:16:55 You’re an entrepreneur.
    1:16:58 How do you think your party have done with appealing to entrepreneurs?
    1:16:58 Terribly.
    1:16:59 You,
    1:17:01 you preside over San Francisco,
    1:17:04 which is globally we think of as the center point of innovation and technology.
    1:17:05 Terrible.
    1:17:05 But I,
    1:17:09 I think the perception is that the democratic party don’t like entrepreneurs and the
    1:17:10 Republicans,
    1:17:11 it’s the home of entrepreneurship.
    1:17:11 In fact,
    1:17:12 all of my friends that are entrepreneurs,
    1:17:13 if,
    1:17:15 if they were being honest in private,
    1:17:19 they would say that they lean towards the Republican party as it relates to
    1:17:19 entrepreneurship.
    1:17:20 And it’s amazing.
    1:17:20 But you know,
    1:17:21 it’s interesting since 1989,
    1:17:24 the end of the cold war in the United States of America,
    1:17:26 there’s been 52 million jobs created.
    1:17:29 There have been three Republican administrations,
    1:17:31 three democratic administrations.
    1:17:32 So it’s fair to say,
    1:17:34 how’d we do Republican administrations,
    1:17:37 democratic administrations since 1989 and then the cold war,
    1:17:38 the end of last year,
    1:17:39 52 million jobs.
    1:17:40 And you’d say,
    1:17:41 well,
    1:17:41 it’s maybe 50,
    1:17:42 50,
    1:17:44 maybe Republicans on the basis of your entrepreneur friends,
    1:17:47 Republicans probably did 60% of those jobs were created.
    1:17:47 Well,
    1:17:52 50 of the 52 million were created under democratic administrations,
    1:17:55 1.9 million jobs created during Republican administrations.
    1:17:57 You look at the last three Republican presidents,
    1:17:59 they have one thing in common,
    1:17:59 recessions.
    1:18:04 During the last administration under Joe Biden created 16.6 million jobs.
    1:18:07 And I know a lot of those were COVID jobs,
    1:18:10 but he blew past that after 18 months,
    1:18:14 he created eight times more jobs than the last three Republican administrations combined.
    1:18:21 But this economy does better job creation thrives during democratic ministries,
    1:18:24 but perception is exactly what you said.
    1:18:24 Yes.
    1:18:25 So you,
    1:18:25 you,
    1:18:26 you gave me the logic.
    1:18:27 I know,
    1:18:29 but the brain isn’t orientated towards logic.
    1:18:29 It’s narrative.
    1:18:31 Where’s the economy in this country?
    1:18:33 Why are we the fourth largest economy in the world?
    1:18:35 We have four of the top seven market cap companies in the world.
    1:18:38 NVIDIA just came with $4 trillion market cap.
    1:18:41 We dominate 32 of the top 50 AI companies are right here in California.
    1:18:44 We’re dominating every key industry.
    1:18:45 We’re the biggest manufacturing state.
    1:18:47 We dominate naming industry.
    1:18:49 California dominates.
    1:18:50 So why are entrepreneurs so pissed off?
    1:18:51 Big blue state.
    1:18:53 Why are entrepreneurs in your state pissed off?
    1:18:56 71% of the GDP in this country are blue metro counties.
    1:18:57 Elon left.
    1:18:58 He went to Texas.
    1:18:59 He left and came right back.
    1:19:00 Where’s Grok?
    1:19:00 Where’s,
    1:19:02 where’s his R&D headquarters,
    1:19:02 world headquarters?
    1:19:04 Where are the vast majority of his jobs?
    1:19:06 They’re SpaceX and Tesla.
    1:19:11 He did that because he wanted to make a buck so he can avoid capital gains and avoid income
    1:19:18 tax as he cashes out on 20 years of largesse by the taxpayers in California that created a
    1:19:23 regulatory environment that created the industry because of our vehicle emission standards and
    1:19:27 subsidize that industry with billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money to make
    1:19:28 Elon rich.
    1:19:32 And then he turned his back so he didn’t have to pay capital gains.
    1:19:33 But you know, I think that-
    1:19:34 And by the way, he’s back.
    1:19:36 All his AI, where’s all his AI?
    1:19:37 It’s in California.
    1:19:40 Where are all of his research and development folks all in California?
    1:19:42 Everything you said might be true.
    1:19:44 And I don’t know the details of it, so I can’t comment on that.
    1:19:45 But again, perception.
    1:19:46 I know.
    1:19:47 Come back to perception.
    1:19:47 I agree.
    1:19:54 When I, in my, you know, over in the UK, when I watch the Democratic Party attacking these
    1:20:01 really successful individuals and Biden attacking Elon Musk, look, I’m not going to go into
    1:20:04 the details of the details of Elon Musk’s in his imperfections and other things.
    1:20:05 Elon’s unique in that respect.
    1:20:07 He makes it easy to attack both parties.
    1:20:12 But let’s try and, let’s just try and hit this point, which is the Democratic Party tend
    1:20:15 to be the ones who are criticizing the world’s most successful people.
    1:20:16 I agree.
    1:20:20 And saying that they’re this and this, and never pausing to say, actually, they did something
    1:20:21 good as well.
    1:20:26 And it’s the lack of nuance for me where I go, I can’t, I can’t trust that these people
    1:20:27 are just pure evil.
    1:20:31 I can’t trust that they’re just pure evil and only bad things, which is all I hear.
    1:20:33 But on the right side, you might hear the opposite.
    1:20:34 Where is the nuance here?
    1:20:37 Like, can you say something positive about Elon Musk?
    1:20:41 I’ve been, there’s been no bigger champion of Elon Musk for 20 years than I have.
    1:20:43 I’ve been his biggest supporter.
    1:20:45 In fact, I have one of the first Teslas right off the factory floor.
    1:20:49 I’ve been his biggest promoter and supporter for decades and decades.
    1:20:51 So I’ve said that over and over and over again.
    1:20:53 It all tends to be negative about these entrepreneurs.
    1:20:58 You know, you can understand from like, left politics around the world does seem to have
    1:21:01 a certain disdain for successful entrepreneurs.
    1:21:02 So let’s talk about that.
    1:21:04 It is the worst part of my party.
    1:21:05 I can’t stand it.
    1:21:07 I do not begrudge other people’s success.
    1:21:09 I’m inspired by it.
    1:21:10 I admire it.
    1:21:12 We opened this conversation up, all these heroes of mine.
    1:21:15 Like, Richard Branson’s a hero of mine.
    1:21:16 I love his success.
    1:21:17 I love his audacity.
    1:21:18 I love his ability to compete.
    1:21:22 I love his ability to promote, create jobs, opportunity, wealth.
    1:21:25 I think it is a big problem in the Democratic Party.
    1:21:32 And we do not do enough to make this fundamental point, you know, that you cannot be pro-job
    1:21:33 and anti-business, period.
    1:21:35 And we need to say that.
    1:21:36 And we need to demonstrate that.
    1:21:38 Look, it drove me crazy.
    1:21:42 Half my friends were up there, like maybe not even half, a lot more than half, were up there
    1:21:44 with Donald Trump when he got sworn in.
    1:21:52 And the symbolism of that was he’s got the back, and they have his back, of entrepreneurs and dream
    1:21:53 makers in this country.
    1:21:53 Yeah.
    1:21:58 And I thought, Jesus, I mean, just that alone, where the hell was my party?
    1:22:02 Why are we making a case for entrepreneurs and business leaders?
    1:22:02 Do you respect Elon?
    1:22:08 I’ve long respected him, but he’s changed in the last seven, eight years.
    1:22:08 He just has.
    1:22:12 And I say that with so many mutual friends, universally saying that.
    1:22:13 In fact, I was one of the last to come around.
    1:22:15 I’m like, no, he’s all right.
    1:22:18 Even after he left, quote, unquote, Tesla left, which they never did.
    1:22:20 They didn’t move a job.
    1:22:22 They just changed the corporate headquarters.
    1:22:24 He came back a few months later.
    1:22:28 You can go online, and you can see a press conference I had when he moved his world R&D
    1:22:30 headquarters back to California.
    1:22:32 And I praised Elon.
    1:22:33 And that wasn’t that long ago.
    1:22:36 That was after, quote, unquote, he left the state of California.
    1:22:38 But he’s different now.
    1:22:40 Something’s changed.
    1:22:44 And now, of course, it’s been exposed across the spectrum.
    1:22:45 It’s not just from a prism of left and right.
    1:22:47 But I’ve long admired him.
    1:22:48 He created this entire market.
    1:22:51 And he’s 100% right about this big, beautiful bill.
    1:22:56 He’s 100% right that we’re doubling down on stupid, and we’re investing in the past as the
    1:22:57 rest of the world is leaping forward.
    1:23:01 China’s going to clean our clock as it relates to electric vehicles.
    1:23:04 They’re going to clean our clock in terms of the future and dominate it because of some
    1:23:08 of what Donald Trump has just done and rolling back progress that was made over the last
    1:23:13 decade or so, particularly as it relates to what just occurred with the IRA and notably
    1:23:17 with the infrastructure bill that the president of the United States, previous president, passed.
    1:23:23 So I agree with him on a lot of things, but some character issues that I question.
    1:23:26 I use his name, I guess, because he’s now so influential in this country, but he’s also
    1:23:30 like a figurehead of like a certain, you know, of entrepreneurship and innovation.
    1:23:32 So he’s, and now he owns X as well, so the platform’s so big.
    1:23:38 Under, if you are ever to become president, what’s your attitude going to be towards entrepreneurs
    1:23:39 like him?
    1:23:43 And how is that different to the democratic history?
    1:23:45 Celebrate, revere their entrepreneurialism.
    1:23:46 We celebrate them.
    1:23:47 We celebrate their contributions.
    1:23:56 Again, we don’t, we don’t, I mean, I just, the idea that our party is branded by begrudging
    1:23:57 other people’s success.
    1:24:03 It’s devastating to, I think the, to the aspirations of what it means.
    1:24:06 So much of what it means to be in America and California is the dream.
    1:24:10 It’s attached to this notion of social mobility, that there’s a limitlessness in terms of being
    1:24:11 and doing anything.
    1:24:16 And so my job as governor and my job in any position would be to create the conditions
    1:24:19 where people feel included, feel seen, where they can live their lives back.
    1:24:23 What I said earlier, out loud, and we create the conditions where their success becomes
    1:24:25 inevitable or irresistible.
    1:24:31 And I think a lot of what leadership is, is climate control, not in the sustainable sense.
    1:24:33 And it’s no longer command and control.
    1:24:40 What I’m concerned about now is the command and control of crony capitalism coming back into
    1:24:42 the United States of America because of Donald Trump.
    1:24:43 You got to kiss the ring.
    1:24:45 You don’t kiss the ring, it’s going to be punitive.
    1:24:48 You want an exemption on the tariffs?
    1:24:50 Just make a call, or rather, better yet, make a contribution.
    1:24:53 Maybe you make a contribution indirectly by buying some crypto.
    1:24:56 And that contribution then gets the benefit.
    1:25:01 Maybe you make a deal overseas on weapons and we’ll take care of the golf course.
    1:25:04 Maybe we’ll take care of the new two towers for the family.
    1:25:07 That’s what’s happened under Trump in just six months.
    1:25:08 To a degree, never.
    1:25:13 It’s unimaginable in the United States to see it at this scale, in this level.
    1:25:16 And that’s, to me, not free enterprise.
    1:25:22 I’ve just invested millions into this and become a co-owner of the company.
    1:25:23 It’s a company called Ketone IQ.
    1:25:25 And the story is quite interesting.
    1:25:30 I started talking about ketosis on this podcast and the fact that I’m very low carb, very,
    1:25:30 very low sugar.
    1:25:35 And my body produces ketones, which have made me incredibly focused, have improved my endurance,
    1:25:39 have improved my mood, and have made me more capable at doing what I do here.
    1:25:43 And because I was talking about it on the podcast, a couple of weeks later, these showed up on
    1:25:46 my desk in my HQ in London, these little shots.
    1:25:48 And oh my God.
    1:25:55 The impact this had on my ability to articulate myself, on my focus, on my workouts, on my mood,
    1:26:00 on stopping me crashing throughout the day was so profound that I reached out to the founders
    1:26:01 of the company.
    1:26:03 And now I’m a co-owner of this business.
    1:26:06 I highly, highly recommend you look into this.
    1:26:08 I highly recommend you look at the science behind the product.
    1:26:13 If you want to try it for yourself, visit ketone.com slash Stephen for 30% off your subscription
    1:26:14 order.
    1:26:16 And you’ll also get a free gift with your second shipment.
    1:26:20 That’s ketone.com slash Stephen.
    1:26:24 And I’m so honored that once again, a company I own can sponsor my podcast.
    1:26:29 Is the world safer now under Trump than it was under Biden?
    1:26:30 There’s nuance to that.
    1:26:33 I don’t think it’s a binary safe.
    1:26:34 I mean, I think-
    1:26:38 In terms of war and the probability of a World War III, are we-
    1:26:41 I think it’s more unpredictable than it’s been.
    1:26:46 I worry about nuclear proliferation.
    1:26:49 I worry about AI.
    1:26:51 Biden wasn’t doing so well.
    1:26:55 When I watched that debate and he was struggling over his words and couldn’t be coherent with
    1:26:57 sentences, I did-
    1:26:59 I was his chief surrogate that night, so-
    1:27:00 Chief surrogate?
    1:27:00 Yeah.
    1:27:03 I mean, I was there representing the campaign to make a case-
    1:27:04 Oh, so you were there?
    1:27:05 For the-
    1:27:07 I actually think I saw you afterwards doing interviews.
    1:27:09 I was doing my best to have-
    1:27:13 And you go home with a guy who brought you to the dance.
    1:27:20 And, you know, I was proud to support him, but that was a difficult night.
    1:27:21 Did you realize in that-
    1:27:23 Was that the moment you realized that he wasn’t-
    1:27:24 Right when he walked out on stage.
    1:27:25 Doing well.
    1:27:26 I was in the back.
    1:27:30 I’ll never forget physically standing up as I was watching and going, ooh.
    1:27:31 And I turned to my staff.
    1:27:33 I said, something’s off.
    1:27:34 Right when he walked on stage.
    1:27:35 Felt it.
    1:27:40 It was the only time I saw that was at a fundraiser here that he had after he had no sleep.
    1:27:45 And I just, we all just literally assumed it was just jet lag and he had flown back and forth
    1:27:49 and over a week back and forth to Europe twice and he had a late night.
    1:27:52 And I thought, boy, he’s just not on.
    1:27:57 Like, and that was in private, not just his public comments with President Obama that night.
    1:28:03 There was a lot of talk rhetoric that there was an internal desire to overthrow him around
    1:28:07 that time because you could see on TV he was struggling and in the polls and Donald Trump
    1:28:07 was reveling in it.
    1:28:11 And then I heard this narrative coming up that, you know, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic
    1:28:15 Party were having private conversations and telling him to step down and forcing him out.
    1:28:18 All cards on the table, 100% truth.
    1:28:19 Is there any truth in that?
    1:28:20 Yeah.
    1:28:22 No, a lot of that was happening.
    1:28:26 I mean, a lot of people were, I mean, there was a phone tree that lit up that night.
    1:28:30 There was a text tree, phone tree, email, just blew up.
    1:28:31 Saying?
    1:28:32 People were in panic.
    1:28:34 Total, full-fledged panic.
    1:28:44 And there was a need and desire to know that he was okay and that this was momentary or
    1:28:46 discovered there was something else.
    1:28:46 Maybe he had a cold.
    1:28:47 Maybe there’s some other issue.
    1:28:53 And it led to those kind of conversations that many have been made public, many private.
    1:29:00 Led to meetings with Democratic governors in the White House with the president around the table.
    1:29:01 Including you.
    1:29:01 Including me.
    1:29:05 Mr. President, tell us, you know, what’s your path?
    1:29:05 How are you feeling?
    1:29:11 Some honest back and forth with a few governors that challenged him a little bit more than one
    1:29:13 would have expected with sort of protocol within the party.
    1:29:19 And yeah, a real desire, obviously, to turn the page.
    1:29:25 And ultimately that manifested with a decision he made and led to, obviously, our nominee,
    1:29:26 his vice president.
    1:29:30 He was effectively pushed out of the party by pressure.
    1:29:31 Yeah.
    1:29:32 Because he wanted to continue.
    1:29:33 That was clear.
    1:29:33 He said that.
    1:29:34 Yeah.
    1:29:36 He believed he was the only one that could beat Donald Trump.
    1:29:37 Yeah.
    1:29:40 Having beat him once, he was convinced he could do it again.
    1:29:44 He believed that his record of the lowest black unemployment, Hispanic unemployment, lowest
    1:29:49 unemployment for women, the best economy in 60 years as it relates to jobs and GDP growth,
    1:29:54 inflation that was cooling from 9.1 and was moving in the right direction with the Chips
    1:29:58 and Science Act, with the infrastructure bill, the IRA, 400 bipartisan bills.
    1:30:01 He felt lowest uninsured rates.
    1:30:05 They felt like things directionally were moving despite the inflation scars.
    1:30:07 And then he can make that case.
    1:30:07 He felt that.
    1:30:08 He really did feel that way.
    1:30:13 A lot of the narrative was that you were going to step in potentially at last minute.
    1:30:18 And I know in your head, you must have been mulling and thinking about going back and
    1:30:20 forward, about different possibilities and outcomes.
    1:30:22 Things were moving so quickly and there was such little time.
    1:30:27 I saw your name mentioned all the time associated with stepping in to replace him.
    1:30:32 No, but I was also the one that was out there still campaigning for him after everyone else
    1:30:33 had turned his back.
    1:30:38 But you must be in your head at night thinking things could change.
    1:30:42 You talked about what shaped me, those moments.
    1:30:50 When I say no daylight, when I say, you know, I got to make up for disappointing this guy
    1:30:52 and myself, when I’m in, I’m in.
    1:30:56 And I’ll tell you, the coin of the realm in politics is loyalty, period, full stop.
    1:30:57 Willie Brown taught me that.
    1:31:01 And Joe Biden, I was going to have his back.
    1:31:04 So I literally, I’m telling you, look me in the eye.
    1:31:04 Yeah.
    1:31:06 Because I know it’s cynical.
    1:31:08 Did not think along those lines.
    1:31:16 After he dropped out, those minutes later, and my cell phone blew up, I confess that
    1:31:19 there were a number of people that wondered.
    1:31:25 And I imagine you can, you know, there were plenty of people sort of circling and go, well,
    1:31:26 maybe this is the moment.
    1:31:28 Once he dropped out.
    1:31:32 I, to be candid, I’m going to get in trouble for saying this because I haven’t said it public.
    1:31:33 I was a little angry.
    1:31:34 I didn’t get a heads up.
    1:31:35 You didn’t get a heads up that he was dropping out.
    1:31:38 Just give me like a text, two minutes, because I was embarrassed.
    1:31:40 I was sitting with a group of people.
    1:31:43 I was, and I was like, my phone rang.
    1:31:44 I was like, wow.
    1:31:49 So I was, my first reaction, honestly, was like, geez, man, all this stuff I did for this
    1:31:50 guy, I didn’t know, not even a heads up.
    1:31:53 And first missed call, true story.
    1:31:55 I didn’t even know it was an unknown number.
    1:31:57 I didn’t even look at it for about six hours.
    1:31:58 And it was Kamala.
    1:31:59 Kamala?
    1:32:00 She only made the call to me.
    1:32:01 Saying what?
    1:32:02 Just a voicemail.
    1:32:03 Love to talk.
    1:32:04 About what?
    1:32:06 She was running.
    1:32:11 So it’s, you know, and a few hours later, I put out a press release supporting her candidacy.
    1:32:15 What should the Democratic Party have done with the wisdom of hindsight in that moment instead
    1:32:17 of just putting Kamala straight in?
    1:32:18 All geniuses in hindsight.
    1:32:21 I don’t know what you could have possibly done with just such a short runway.
    1:32:25 You had the vice president of the United States.
    1:32:27 You had the apparatus that was built within the party.
    1:32:32 You had the legal ability for her because it was the Biden-Harris campaign to transfer a
    1:32:33 lot of that.
    1:32:33 Yeah.
    1:32:34 You had little time.
    1:32:37 You would have opened up to a circular firing squad.
    1:32:38 But it didn’t work.
    1:32:39 As it relates to the party.
    1:32:41 In hindsight, it didn’t work.
    1:32:45 What could you have done with the benefit of hindsight that might have worked?
    1:32:45 Yeah.
    1:32:46 Would have, could have, should have.
    1:32:47 I don’t live in that.
    1:32:51 I think, but, but I live where we, where we were exploring a moment ago.
    1:32:58 And that is in reflection more broadly of where the party is, less the individuals.
    1:33:00 And I think that’s our biggest mistake.
    1:33:02 We’re so consumed by the individual.
    1:33:03 Identity politics.
    1:33:08 Yeah, but, well, issues related, identity politics broadly, but it’s not just the person.
    1:33:08 Oh, okay.
    1:33:09 It’s who we represent.
    1:33:14 And there’s a word we didn’t use earlier, but you used it in relationship to Trump.
    1:33:16 Weakness versus strength.
    1:33:23 And I’ll tell you, to me, at the core, the end of the day, to me, it’s that distinction
    1:33:27 that perhaps says more things in more ways on more days about where our two parties are.
    1:33:31 Donald Trump exudes, strangely, strength.
    1:33:34 I think he’s weakness masquerading as strength.
    1:33:37 Our party appears weak for many, too many.
    1:33:41 And I remember Bill Clinton, after shellacking, we got crushed in a midterm.
    1:33:47 And he said, given the choice, Bill Clinton said, the American people always support strong
    1:33:50 and wrong versus weak and right.
    1:33:52 There’s something about that.
    1:33:56 I think this notion of strength, I think it goes to young boys.
    1:34:00 I think it goes to Trump and Trumpism, what he sells, what he represents to people.
    1:34:05 I think in that distinction, maybe is a pathway for our party.
    1:34:10 And my last question before I get to the book, which is the question left by our last guest,
    1:34:17 is there’s a high probability, which I’m aware of, that I’m sat with the future president of
    1:34:18 the United States.
    1:34:19 There’s a probability.
    1:34:22 Even if it’s a 1% probability, it’s an extraordinary opportunity to ask this question.
    1:34:23 I’ll give you 1%.
    1:34:24 Yeah, even if it’s a 1%.
    1:34:26 But I looked at the odds before I walked out.
    1:34:27 So I know it’s higher.
    1:34:34 Under you, if I took that Men in Black little pen thing that erases memory, and I erase my
    1:34:38 memory of the Democratic Party, and I erase the memory of the Democratic Party for all of my
    1:34:42 audience watching, and you have a clean slate to redefine that party.
    1:34:46 And we don’t remember or we don’t reflect on the past.
    1:34:52 And that party is coming up in 2028 against the Republican MAGA-centric party, maybe led by
    1:34:52 J.D.
    1:34:53 Vance.
    1:34:56 What is that proposition?
    1:34:58 I’m a young man, but not just for young men, for everybody.
    1:35:00 What is the proposition you’re putting forward?
    1:35:02 What does it sound like?
    1:35:06 And I don’t want any of the political stuff.
    1:35:06 No, no, no.
    1:35:07 What does it sound like?
    1:35:15 And you can appreciate, I hope, that I don’t have the kind of answer that’s worthy of that
    1:35:16 question.
    1:35:18 Because it’s a spectacular question.
    1:35:23 And it’s fundamentally the question that needs to be answered by whoever is running for president
    1:35:24 of the United States.
    1:35:27 And it needs to be done so congruently.
    1:35:28 It can’t be to your point, bullshit.
    1:35:33 It can’t be a poll-tested focus group, a bunch of words and pablum.
    1:35:34 What does your heart say?
    1:35:35 You have to feel it.
    1:35:42 In so many respects, what we just ended on, I think this notion of the dream, I think there’s
    1:35:49 something about why we’re together that is sort of the intersection of entrepreneurialism,
    1:36:00 aspiration, inspiration, growth, opportunity, inclusion, that begins to answer and flesh
    1:36:02 out, or create an answer that fleshes out.
    1:36:06 And it’s in that space that I’m consumed.
    1:36:12 I’m consumed by contribution and service, this notion of service, communitarianism, this notion
    1:36:14 that we’re all better off and we’re all better off.
    1:36:18 I think public service should be a requirement, national service.
    1:36:27 But it’s in that space that ultimately, I think, an answer will emerge.
    1:36:33 And there’s lots of, it’s funny because politics, more and more I’ve learned about it, is this
    1:36:38 battle between rationality and logic and then just emotion and perception, I guess.
    1:36:39 Exactly right.
    1:36:43 So you talked about some of the great things the Democratic Party have done, but it’s crazy
    1:36:48 how the headlines will be dominated by some issue around, quote unquote, woke ideology.
    1:36:49 100%.
    1:36:53 And it almost becomes the case that people care, they’re more emotionally compelled by
    1:36:58 this idea that their kids in schools are being taught something that is corrupting their mind
    1:37:00 versus how the economy is doing or jobs.
    1:37:00 I know.
    1:37:04 And there was, it was, it’s, and I think we struggled to recognize that.
    1:37:05 How do you recognize that?
    1:37:09 They were shape-shifting, CRT, ESG, DAI, anything with three letters.
    1:37:10 I mean, we were on our heels.
    1:37:11 We were on the receiving end of all this.
    1:37:13 We’re constantly on the defense.
    1:37:15 We got, I love what President Obama just said.
    1:37:17 He said, we got to get more aggressive, get on the offense.
    1:37:18 I’ve been saying this for years.
    1:37:19 What does that mean?
    1:37:21 Meaning we’ve got to shape the narrative.
    1:37:22 Illusion rules.
    1:37:23 Facts don’t matter.
    1:37:27 You’ve got these propaganda networks weaponizing grievance 24-7.
    1:37:33 And we’re constantly responding to these, these, these, these, these culture wars.
    1:37:34 And let me be specific on that.
    1:37:40 I think, you know, the governor of Utah said it best, never has so much attention been focused
    1:37:43 on so few as it relates to the issue of trans athletes.
    1:37:44 He’s 100% right.
    1:37:45 But there’s also truism.
    1:37:48 And it’s part of, you know, part of being in business.
    1:37:51 You’re nothing but a mirror of your consistent thoughts.
    1:37:53 Whatever you focus on, you’re going to find more of.
    1:37:58 And so if 24-7, that’s all that’s coming from you, California, this, California, that California
    1:38:01 crack up, everyone’s leaving, worst place to do everything else.
    1:38:02 You start to believe it.
    1:38:03 You start, start to shape your conversation.
    1:38:05 Then you start finding proof points.
    1:38:06 Oh, there’s an Enkoma’s encampment.
    1:38:08 Oh, I just read about this crime down at the Walmart.
    1:38:12 And it’s just, everyone’s leaving because, because Elon left everyone.
    1:38:15 So I think narrative matters to your point.
    1:38:17 Trump understands that better than anybody.
    1:38:22 He repeats things over in, in the, you know, the vernacular of my buddy, Marshawn Lynch,
    1:38:26 over and over and over and over and over and over, over, over again.
    1:38:30 So I think flooding the zone in that respect, you are a master at it.
    1:38:31 I mean, dealing with Jesus, seriously.
    1:38:37 I mean, of all people should hire you, my friend, that understand data and analytics,
    1:38:46 communication, how to target, broader message, values, brand, strength, and how to sell.
    1:38:46 You got to sell it.
    1:38:49 I mean, we’re sitting there talking about the Chips and Science Act.
    1:38:51 No one knows what the hell you’re even talking about.
    1:38:53 We didn’t sell what we were delivering.
    1:38:54 I think we have to have a…
    1:38:55 We need to rebrand it.
    1:38:55 Yeah.
    1:38:59 And we, and it’s also, look, part of the answer to the question you asked earlier is also,
    1:39:02 you know, Ezra Klein and others talk about, but abundance mindset.
    1:39:05 We’ve had this scarcity mindset, this sort of zero-sum mindset.
    1:39:08 And as an entrepreneur, you don’t have a scarcity mindset.
    1:39:13 And I think as part of the brand building of our party, it’s not just in terms of housing
    1:39:18 and issues related to what Ezra speaks in terms of abundance mindset, but it’s that growth abundance
    1:39:19 mindset.
    1:39:24 And I think that’s part of, when I talk about the dream, I’m also saying this, by the way,
    1:39:26 from the prison that no other governor can claim.
    1:39:29 You have the American dream and you have the California dream.
    1:39:31 There’s no other state that’s attached to a dream.
    1:39:37 And I think there’s something evocative in that because that inspires a journey that we can
    1:39:39 be on, a journey that we can go on together.
    1:39:42 And so I’m captured by the vernacular of the 60s.
    1:39:46 And Bobby Kennedy was my political hero, Sarge Shriver and Kennedy.
    1:39:52 Everything about that, solving for ignorance and poverty and disease and this notion of going
    1:39:55 on a journey together, that was what the moon was all about.
    1:39:57 And we can see ourselves on that journey.
    1:40:02 Right now, you know, it’s the blue versus the red team.
    1:40:06 This is a war within in this country.
    1:40:10 And I think whoever runs the next four years or three years, it’s about stitching this
    1:40:13 back together and going on a journey together.
    1:40:16 Because as I say all the time, divorce is not an option.
    1:40:19 There’s just two other things that sprung to mind as you’re talking is, I’ve always wondered
    1:40:21 in California, specifically in LA.
    1:40:22 I told you I moved here.
    1:40:24 I just moved into my place yesterday, in fact.
    1:40:28 I was in a CVS, I think it was, and I was trying to get some toothpaste.
    1:40:29 Horrible, right?
    1:40:30 Yeah, I couldn’t believe it.
    1:40:34 I said to the team, this was like six months ago, I was like, I went to a CVS to get some
    1:40:34 toothpaste.
    1:40:37 And I got to the toothpaste, and it’s in a cage.
    1:40:40 And I said to the lady there, I was like, why is the toothpaste in a cage?
    1:40:42 And she goes, look.
    1:40:48 And she points down the aisle, and there was a gentleman, a homeless gentleman, who was stuffing
    1:40:49 things in his sock.
    1:40:50 Yeah.
    1:40:54 And I thought, fucking hell, like, if I look over there, there’s these mansions in the
    1:40:55 hills.
    1:40:59 And if I’m in the CVS, the toothpaste’s in a cage because the homeless people are stuffing
    1:41:00 things into their socks.
    1:41:01 Yeah.
    1:41:03 Is that fixable?
    1:41:04 Yes.
    1:41:05 And what caused it?
    1:41:11 Well, now you’re dealing with larger systemic issues that go back decades and decades, and
    1:41:13 the has and have nots, and that goes to-
    1:41:14 Drug addiction.
    1:41:14 Yeah.
    1:41:19 And the specific issues around homelessness, and that gets to deeper issues about mental health,
    1:41:22 behavior, health issues, affordability, housing crisis.
    1:41:22 But look-
    1:41:23 Is it fixable?
    1:41:23 Yes.
    1:41:25 By definition, it’s fixable.
    1:41:26 Why does no one fix it?
    1:41:27 It’s being fixed.
    1:41:27 Is it?
    1:41:29 And progress is literally being made.
    1:41:32 We’re seeing significant reductions, back-to-back years in crime.
    1:41:35 We’re seeing significant reductions in organized retail theft.
    1:41:38 We’re seeing significant reductions, including just here in LA.
    1:41:42 They announced 17.5% decline over two years in the number of people out in the streets and
    1:41:44 sidewalks and unsheltered homeless.
    1:41:46 That was literally announced yesterday by the mayor.
    1:41:48 So there is progress in all these cases.
    1:41:49 So absolutely, it’s solvable.
    1:41:53 You’re getting more radical on this point as well, because I saw the announcement you
    1:41:56 made, and I watched very closely a couple of years ago when you announced that you’re
    1:41:57 going to have to get these encampments off the street.
    1:41:58 Well, I’m done with it.
    1:41:59 It’s exhausting.
    1:42:00 Clean them up.
    1:42:01 It’s the job of a mayor.
    1:42:03 My job as mayor, former mayor of San Francisco.
    1:42:05 Do your job.
    1:42:06 Clean them up.
    1:42:07 Get people off the street.
    1:42:08 There’s nothing-
    1:42:11 Stepping over people on the streets and sidewalks is not compassion.
    1:42:14 And so we have flooded the zones in terms of support and resources.
    1:42:15 Now it’s about performance.
    1:42:20 I have the great honor of working with Prince William in the UK on a homelessness initiative,
    1:42:21 so I know the complexities of it.
    1:42:25 And some people think of it as just a housing issue, but having spent time with people at
    1:42:27 risk of homelessness, I know it’s a confidence issue.
    1:42:28 It’s a mental health issue.
    1:42:30 It’s a jobs issue.
    1:42:32 It’s a pathways into employment issue.
    1:42:33 It’s a very, very complicated issue.
    1:42:36 So that’s actually blown my mind, homewards have, in terms of-
    1:42:37 I mean, I say it all the time.
    1:42:38 Shelters solve sleep.
    1:42:42 Housing and supportive services solve homelessness.
    1:42:45 You’ve got to deal with the underlying reasons people are out in the streets and sidewalks
    1:42:46 in the first place.
    1:42:52 And so it’s about this comprehensive integration of care, whole-person care, as we describe it.
    1:42:55 We’ve just gone through the most significant mental health reforms in U.S. history.
    1:43:02 We have flooded the zone with more support, 26,000 new units of behavioral health housing.
    1:43:07 We are producing and procuring in the state of California in real time with zoning reforms so we
    1:43:12 can cite them, workforce development reforms, and we’re reorganizing the integration around mental
    1:43:17 health in the silos and people with drug and alcohol addictions and the integration.
    1:43:23 And this is the source to me of so much of my real passion in terms of my day job.
    1:43:25 And you’re going to see real progress in this state.
    1:43:28 Well, I did do some research beforehand and I can see that there’s some really significant
    1:43:31 actions taken and they are nuanced and complex in their solution.
    1:43:32 So that’s very, very encouraging.
    1:43:36 And it’s encouraging to meet someone who understands the complexities of this problem because actually
    1:43:39 the narrative that will win out in an election cycle is going to be emotional.
    1:43:40 It’s going to be simple.
    1:43:46 And so I think everybody should look out for emotional and simple answers and exclude them
    1:43:47 whenever you hear them.
    1:43:52 Last question before I ask you this one is all the headlines at the moment are about Jeffrey
    1:43:52 Epstein.
    1:43:58 And the way that that’s been handled really is the thing that I find so fascinating because
    1:44:03 on the way into the presidential office and into those big roles, there were certain promises
    1:44:06 made about the Epstein files and it would be released.
    1:44:08 And if you vote for me, then I will release these files.
    1:44:11 And now there’s nothing to see.
    1:44:11 Yeah.
    1:44:13 What happened there?
    1:44:15 Well, they lied.
    1:44:17 They lied to you then or they lied to you now, period.
    1:44:19 Someone lied about this.
    1:44:22 They dangled this in order to get votes and they lied to people.
    1:44:23 They used people.
    1:44:26 And someone needs to be held to account.
    1:44:30 And look, I could be cynical about it.
    1:44:34 I could be very political about it and say it’s interesting when Elon, we brought up Elon,
    1:44:38 when Elon Musk tweets something out saying Trump’s on the list.
    1:44:42 And a few days later, there is no list.
    1:44:43 You can be cynical about that.
    1:44:46 It leads to some open-ended questions.
    1:44:48 What would you have done if you were Trump in that situation?
    1:44:52 So say that you’d been elected and the public demanding to see this list.
    1:44:53 What would you have done?
    1:44:55 One thing is obvious.
    1:44:58 I know Pam Bondi well, the attorney general.
    1:44:59 We’ve known each other over the years.
    1:45:01 She doesn’t move without Trump.
    1:45:11 If she’s fired, she’s the fall person because there’s no question she was directed by Trump to say what she said.
    1:45:19 She would not have, period, full stop, done something independent of the president on the Epstein files.
    1:45:20 So Trump is the person that’s…
    1:45:22 So one has to acknowledge that.
    1:45:25 So then it begs additional questions.
    1:45:33 Why was she told not to release the files unless, A, there’s no files and they made it up the entire damn time,
    1:45:41 just like they made up Obama’s birth certificate, just like they make up most things most days, my humble position.
    1:45:42 I think that’s very plausible.
    1:45:44 It could be very simple.
    1:45:45 It could be as simple as that.
    1:45:46 They started the conspiracy.
    1:45:46 They fucked it up.
    1:45:47 They started.
    1:45:49 They’re covering their ass and they’re just like, shit, we got caught.
    1:45:50 We use this.
    1:45:52 We sort of squeeze this out.
    1:45:53 We got everything we needed.
    1:45:54 We’re in power.
    1:45:57 Or it’s more insidious than that.
    1:45:59 And look, the one thing is just not even…
    1:46:03 It’s just simple truth.
    1:46:05 Epstein and Trump were close.
    1:46:06 They were.
    1:46:07 It wasn’t just a few photographs.
    1:46:09 They were close.
    1:46:10 That’s a fact.
    1:46:11 Sorry, Donald.
    1:46:12 Just a fact.
    1:46:16 So, look, I get why this outrages folks.
    1:46:17 I think it’s interesting.
    1:46:19 It’s outraged some of the core base.
    1:46:22 I enjoy the hell out of it.
    1:46:24 I’m just…
    1:46:24 I spoke…
    1:46:27 That was my private voice out loud as a Democrat.
    1:46:29 And, yeah.
    1:46:33 And I hope our party gins this up much more as they would.
    1:46:35 If you get into office, people are going to say, release the list.
    1:46:37 I mean, if there’s a…
    1:46:39 They are, they’re going to say…
    1:46:40 I will commit to release the list or what?
    1:46:40 Yeah.
    1:46:43 Unless there’s some national security secret here or something.
    1:46:48 And I know that leads to speculation about Mossad and other speculation.
    1:46:50 I mean, was he on the foreign intelligence list?
    1:46:53 And is there real implications to our national security?
    1:46:54 Why did he make all his money?
    1:46:59 I mean, I’ve got enough problems with homelessness and housing in California, worry about Jeffrey
    1:46:59 Epstein.
    1:47:02 But, hey, they created this mess.
    1:47:04 Now they got to clean it up.
    1:47:09 Governor, we have a closing tradition on this podcast where the last guest leaves a question
    1:47:11 for the next guest, not knowing who they’re leaving it for.
    1:47:15 And the question left for you is…
    1:47:20 Have you received a sign from beyond?
    1:47:23 That’s good.
    1:47:28 In the spirit of Epstein and sort of conspiracies, I immediately go to…
    1:47:36 Yeah, look, I don’t know about that, but there’s a spiritual aspect to me, meaning I’m a person
    1:47:36 of faith.
    1:47:44 I grew up in the church, went to a Jesuit university, quote the Bible often, many parts, one body.
    1:47:51 So I feel that connection to something bigger than myself, if for no other reason that I’m
    1:47:51 desperate for it.
    1:47:55 The person who wrote the question, I’ll tell you, give you a little bit of a clue, they’re
    1:47:59 referring to a late loved one that passed away.
    1:47:59 More specific?
    1:48:00 Yeah.
    1:48:01 Fascinating.
    1:48:03 I’ve never…
    1:48:07 You feel people’s presence when you hear a song.
    1:48:13 You feel people’s presence when you, you know, during season of the year.
    1:48:19 And, you know, I will say, all right, I will say, you’ve got me.
    1:48:23 And this was uncanny.
    1:48:28 My father passed away in his house in San Francisco.
    1:48:37 I came after, in this case, there was no assisted suicide, but I came right after and visited him.
    1:48:41 On, right outside the window was a peregrine falcon.
    1:48:43 Can’t make this up.
    1:48:46 My father was passionate about peregrine falcons.
    1:48:47 I’ve never seen a peregrine…
    1:48:49 I grew up in San Francisco in my life.
    1:48:53 It was a peregrine falcon, right on the balcony, right after his death.
    1:48:56 My sister and I looked at each other, said, you can’t…
    1:48:58 That was the sign.
    1:49:00 True story.
    1:49:03 There’s my answer.
    1:49:06 Thank you.
    1:49:08 Thank you so much.
    1:49:08 I am…
    1:49:12 I’m really encouraged by the example you’re setting for so many reasons.
    1:49:17 And one of the biggest reasons that I’m super encouraged by the example you’re setting is
    1:49:22 because you’re doing what I’ve wished for so long so many people in your position,
    1:49:24 your political position, would do, which is to speak to the other side.
    1:49:31 But also to get out there and to have conversations like this in this new medium of podcasting that
    1:49:33 is unfiltered, uncensored, and is long form.
    1:49:37 And I just, I always longed to see that from the Democratic Party, but they’ve hidden behind
    1:49:42 PR and sanitized messaging for so long.
    1:49:43 And you’re bucking the trend.
    1:49:47 I was so happy when you sat down with Charlie Kirk because those are the conversations I want
    1:49:48 to see.
    1:49:52 And actually, being in the same room made me both realize that there’s a lot you have in
    1:49:57 common and also allowed me to compare the fundamental differences in person.
    1:50:03 But also, it’s so wonderful to get to know you as a man and where you come from.
    1:50:04 Yeah, I appreciate it.
    1:50:05 Because now I understand.
    1:50:07 I understand your motivations.
    1:50:11 I understand the decisions that I think you’d make, you know, going forward as president.
    1:50:15 And it feels like a great honor for you to have given me this time.
    1:50:19 But also, as I said, for your team not to tell me, you can’t talk about this, you can’t
    1:50:20 talk about that.
    1:50:22 And just to let me talk about whatever I wanted to talk about.
    1:50:24 So thank you so much.
    1:50:28 And thank you for having me in your home state now of California.
    1:50:30 I guess I’m a kind of a half semi-resident or something.
    1:50:36 And yeah, I’m going to be watching with much curiosity to see how it plays out.
    1:50:38 And you present a new vision for America.
    1:50:41 I highly recommend everybody goes and checks out your podcast as well.
    1:50:42 I’m going to link it on the screen and below.
    1:50:45 This is Gavin Newsom, where you do exactly that.
    1:50:50 You sit with people and have these conversations that are so unfortunately rare with people you
    1:50:51 often disagree with.
    1:50:54 It’s a fantastic show and it always has me absolutely hooked.
    1:50:58 And your book here as well, I’m going to recommend because it really shaped how I think about your
    1:50:59 philosophy.
    1:51:07 It’s called Citizenville, How to Take the Town Square Digital and Reinvent Government, which
    1:51:09 talks a lot about social media and the role it plays.
    1:51:10 Thank you so much, Gavin.
    1:51:11 It’s been an honor.
    1:51:11 It’s been my honor.
    1:51:12 Thank you so much.
    1:51:12 Really grateful.
    1:51:13 Thank you so much for the time.
    1:51:14 Appreciate it.
    1:51:17 Just give me 30 seconds of your time.
    1:51:19 Two things I wanted to say.
    1:51:23 The first thing is a huge thank you for listening and tuning into the show week after week.
    1:51:24 It means the world to all of us.
    1:51:28 And this really is a dream that we absolutely never had and couldn’t have imagined getting
    1:51:29 to this place.
    1:51:33 But secondly, it’s a dream where we feel like we’re only just getting started.
    1:51:38 And if you enjoy what we do here, please join the 24% of people that listen to this podcast
    1:51:41 regularly and follow us on this app.
    1:51:43 Here’s a promise I’m going to make to you.
    1:51:48 I’m going to do everything in my power to make this show as good as I can now and into the
    1:51:48 future.
    1:51:50 We’re going to deliver the guests that you want me to speak to.
    1:51:54 And we’re going to continue to keep doing all of the things you love about this show.
    1:51:55 Thank you.
    Epstein và Trump đã rất thân thiết. Xin lỗi, Donald, đây chỉ là sự thật. Và khi Elon Musk đăng tweet Trump có trong danh sách, và vài ngày sau đó, không có danh sách nào, điều đó đặt ra nhiều câu hỏi. Họ đã treo cái này để lấy phiếu, và họ đã nói dối mọi người. Chúng ta mới chỉ được sáu tháng, và những sự phá hoại mà ông ấy đã gây ra, đẩy lùi giới hạn của pháp luật, đây là bóng tối. Thật sao? Bởi vì tôi nghe điều này trong mỗi mùa bầu cử. Không, đó là một trò chơi nguy hiểm, và nước Mỹ đang vật lộn, và tôi thực sự lo lắng cho nền dân chủ của chúng ta. Nhưng Trump có khả năng sẽ mất quyền lực trừ khi họ có thể gian lận trò chơi. Thống đốc Gavin Newsom, liệu bạn có định cố gắng để trở thành tổng thống tiếp theo của Hoa Kỳ không? Thống đốc bang California. Gavin Newsom. Gavin Newsom. Ai là Gavin Newsom thật sự? Tôi nghĩ hầu hết mọi người nhìn tôi như một người khá bóng bẩy, lớn lên với một quỹ tín thác. Nhưng tôi không xuất thân từ bất kỳ gia đình giàu có nào. Mẹ tôi là một bà mẹ đơn thân. Bà ấy đã làm hai, ba công việc. Bà ấy đã ra khỏi phòng ngủ của chính mình, hy sinh mọi thứ cho hai đứa trẻ. Và tôi đã không đi đến đâu về mặt học tập, nhưng bà ấy chưa bao giờ từ bỏ tôi. Và khi sự nghiệp chính trị của bạn bắt đầu thăng tiến, bà ấy đã được chẩn đoán mắc ung thư vú. Vâng, và bà ấy đã chịu rất nhiều đau đớn, khổ sở, bà ấy sẽ thực hiện một cuộc tự sát trợ giúp. Và tôi đã nắm tay bà ấy, và bà ấy đang đi… Và hơi thở cuối cùng của bà ấy. Nhưng nhìn xem, tất cả những gì tốt đẹp nhất của tôi, sự kiên trì, nỗ lực làm việc, đều phản ánh từ bà ấy. Và điều đó đã dẫn đến việc tôi ngồi đây với bạn với tư cách là thống đốc California trong chính trị. Ông ấy là một thống đốc bất tài. Hãy nhìn vào công việc mà ông ấy đang làm. Ông ấy là một kẻ nói dối không biết xấu hổ. Luôn có xung đột giữa bạn và Trump. Tôi nghĩ ông ấy thích đấu với tôi. Tôi biết ông ấy thích điều đó, nhưng tôi sẽ nói dối nếu tôi không nói vậy. Mỗi lần tôi có một cuộc trò chuyện, nó thật đáng ngạc nhiên, thân thiện. Và ông ấy nói, cần gì cứ gọi cho tôi. Bao gồm cả đêm trước khi ông ấy, theo nghĩa đen, quốc gia hóa Lực lượng Vệ binh Quốc gia, nhưng sau đó lại gọi tôi là tin tức. Ông ấy muốn loại bỏ tôi. Bạn có nghĩ ông ấy sẽ cố gắng giữ quyền lực không? Vì vậy, tôi không nghĩ mình đang phex đại. Nhưng khi những người gần gũi với Donald Trump gửi đến thống đốc California, hey, họ không xung quanh. Chỉ cần cho tôi 30 giây thời gian của bạn. Hai điều tôi muốn nói. Điều đầu tiên là một lời cảm ơn lớn vì đã lắng nghe và theo dõi chương trình tuần này qua tuần khác. Điều đó có nghĩa rất nhiều với tất cả chúng tôi, và đây thực sự là một giấc mơ mà chúng tôi tuyệt đối chưa bao giờ có và không thể tưởng tượng được điều này. Nhưng thứ hai, đây là một giấc mơ mà chúng tôi cảm thấy như chúng tôi chỉ đang bắt đầu. Và nếu bạn thích những gì chúng tôi làm ở đây, hãy tham gia vào 24% người nghe podcast này thường xuyên và theo dõi chúng tôi trên ứng dụng này. Đây là một lời hứa mà tôi sẽ làm cho bạn. Tôi sẽ làm mọi thứ trong khả năng của mình để làm cho chương trình này tốt nhất có thể bây giờ và trong tương lai. Chúng tôi sẽ mời những khách mời mà bạn muốn tôi nói chuyện, và chúng tôi sẽ tiếp tục làm tất cả những điều mà bạn yêu thích về chương trình này. Cảm ơn bạn. Thống đốc Gavin Newsom. Bạn có thể tin được cuộc đời mình không? Bạn đang điều hành một trong những bang quan trọng nhất ở Mỹ, có thể là bang quan trọng nhất ở Mỹ, nhưng tôi cũng đọc được rằng đây là bang có GDP cao thứ tư trên thế giới. Luôn có mặt trên các tiêu đề. Luôn có xung đột giữa bạn và Trump. Tôi chỉ muốn bắt đầu với câu hỏi này. Bạn có thể tin được cuộc đời mình không? Nếu bạn nói chuyện với đứa trẻ 10 tuổi của tôi, điều này là không thể. Tôi thậm chí có thể đã mơ về điều đó. Tôi không biết đó có phải là một giấc mơ hay một cơn ác mộng khi tôi 10 tuổi. Ý tôi là, tôi không chắc đây là điều tôi muốn khi 10 tuổi. Tôi không chắc tôi muốn điều này khi 20 hoặc thậm chí 30 tuổi. Và tôi biết bạn sẽ tiếp tục ngó lơ những gì tôi sắp nói, nhưng nhiều nhà cái, tỷ lệ đã đặt bạn là tổng thống tiếp theo của Hoa Kỳ vào năm 2028. Tôi sẽ ném điều đó ra. Tôi biết bạn sẽ ngó lơ nó và nói với tôi về California. Chà, thật siêu thực. Ý tôi là, thật vô lý. Ý tôi là, đây là điều mà thậm chí ngay cả trong những khoảnh khắc cao hơn đó, không phải những khoảnh khắc thấp mà tôi có thể đã có một chút tự tin hơn, trong triệu năm tôi cũng không bao giờ tưởng tượng rằng tôi sẽ ở thời điểm này. Và vâng, điều đó tạo ra rất nhiều khiêm tốn, tôi cảm thấy rất nhiều ân sủng xung quanh điều đó. Ý tôi là, ý tưởng rằng bạn thậm chí đang có mặt trong cuộc trò chuyện. Tôi biết điều đó nghe có vẻ mòn mé và rập khuôn, một chút khoe mẽ khiêm nhường. Sự thật rằng tôi đang có mặt trong cuộc trò chuyện là phi thường. Đó có phải là một thực tế? Tôi không biết. Ý tôi là, số phận sẽ quyết định. Tôi hoàn toàn hiểu điều đó. Nhưng tôi chỉ muốn làm rõ một điều, đó là bạn sẽ rất vinh dự nếu có cơ hội đóng vai trò Tổng thống Hoa Kỳ khi cơ hội đó đến hoặc xuất hiện. Vâng. Ý tôi là, tôi không biết về việc diễn vai, nhưng nếu, bạn biết đấy, nếu thời điểm đó gặp bạn và bạn gặp thời điểm đó, nếu bạn có thể bày tỏ một cách đồng điệu lý do tại sao, và bạn có thể làm điều đó mà không có sự giả tạo và bạn có thể làm điều đó một cách chân thật và bạn thực sự tin rằng bạn có thể thêm giá trị so với những người khác có thể xếp hàng. Vâng. Nhưng, bạn biết đấy, tôi sẽ không làm điều đó chỉ để làm cho xong. Tôi không cần phải là ai đó để làm điều gì đó. Vâng. Đối với tôi, bạn phải, tôi nghĩa là, phải cảm nhận điều đó. Nó phải nằm ở trong cốt lõi, tâm hồn của tôi. Nó phải là một nhu cầu và khát khao mãnh liệt để có trách nhiệm và phản ánh thời điểm cũng như phản ánh những khát vọng và ước mơ của hàng triệu và hàng triệu người và có đủ sự tự tin để bạn cảm thấy bạn có thể thực hiện điều đó. Bạn có nghĩ rằng bạn có thể thực hiện được điều đó không? Bạn biết đấy, ngày càng, điều đó thật kỳ lạ. Tôi muốn, tôi không biết rằng tôi đã có thể nói điều đó vài năm trước. Tôi có ý đó. Tôi cảm thấy mọi thứ với tôi đã thay đổi một cách đáng kể và chúng ta có thể đi sâu vào lý do tại sao. Tôi có nghĩa là, tôi đã trải qua, họ đang làm việc để thực hiện cuộc bãi nhiệm thứ bảy chống lại tôi ngay bây giờ. Tôi đã trải qua một quy trình bãi nhiệm. Tôi đã ở đầu nhận của một nỗ lực quốc gia để, bạn biết đấy, cố gắng làm mọi thứ để undermining những gì tôi đang làm.
    Đối mặt với Trump và chủ nghĩa Trump
    cùng với âm thanh quanh đây
    và những mạng lưới tuyên truyền 24-7,
    tôi cảm thấy quyết tâm hơn bao giờ hết.
    Ý tôi là, theo một cách mạnh mẽ.
    Những cách mà tôi đang khám phá bản thân trong quá trình này.
    Tôi đang ở phía bên kia
    của nơi mà tôi từng không ngờ đến,
    thậm chí là một năm trước.
    Và tôi cảm thấy có trách nhiệm sâu sắc
    và cảm thấy rất có động lực.
    Tôi không biết điều đó sẽ dẫn tôi đến đâu
    nhưng tôi biết tôi có một trách nhiệm
    trong 18 tháng tới
    và tôi sẽ chạy nước rút 110 yard.
    Tôi sẽ không chạy nước rút 90 yard
    trên đường ra khỏi đây.
    Và đó là điều tôi biết.
    Tôi có một ngày sử dụng
    và tôi sẽ đặt mọi thứ vào cuộc.
    Vậy thì hãy bắt đầu
    về bối cảnh ban đầu của bạn
    và thời thơ ấu của bạn
    bởi vì tôi nghĩ bạn phải hiểu điều đó
    để hiểu về con người
    và những phức tạp của con người
    mà tôi đang ngồi trước ngày hôm nay.
    Vậy bạn có thể cho tôi biết cụ thể
    về bối cảnh sớm nhất của bạn không?
    Bạn biết đấy, tôi nghĩ nó đã hình thành
    giống như bao người khác đang xem.
    Ý tôi là, có bao nhiêu người trong số chúng ta,
    hơn một nửa trong số đó,
    có những trải nghiệm tương tự
    về, bạn biết đấy,
    một cô gái 19 tuổi mang thai
    với đứa con đầu lòng, tôi.
    Và vài năm sau,
    cô ấy phải tự lập với hai đứa trẻ.
    Cô ấy không xuất thân từ giàu có,
    không có đặc quyền thực sự.
    Cha cô đã tự sát,
    là một tù binh chiến tranh
    sau khi Thế chiến II kết thúc.
    Cô ấy đã vật lộn với bản sắc của chính mình,
    với sự tự tin của mình.
    Cô ấy đã phải vật lộn để nuôi hai đứa trẻ.
    Cha tôi, người đã rời bỏ chúng tôi,
    nhưng không phải trong sự ô nhục,
    là một người phi thường,
    nhưng cũng là một người khó hiểu trong tuổi thơ của tôi
    và đã đánh dấu
    nhiều điều trong thời thơ ấu của tôi
    bằng nỗi khao khát,
    cố gắng kết nối.
    Nhưng người neo đậu, tảng đá,
    là người mẹ đơn thân như một ngôi sao nhạc rock.
    Và mọi thứ xác định
    những điều tốt nhất và tồi tệ nhất trong tôi.
    Khái niệm về sự kiên trì, làm việc chăm chỉ,
    bạn cần phải thể hiện,
    không có gì được trao cho bạn,
    được thể hiện qua cô ấy.
    Đồng thời,
    nhiều lo lắng và sợ hãi,
    một cảm giác, bạn biết đấy,
    ý tôi là, đôi khi là cô đơn.
    Ý tôi là, cô ấy là một người rất cô đơn.
    Tessa.
    Vâng, Tessa đã qua đời
    gần hai thập kỷ trước.
    Và giờ tôi đã lớn hơn cô ấy
    khi cô ấy qua đời.
    Và, bạn biết đấy, tôi chỉ,
    tôi chưa bao giờ hoàn toàn đánh giá cao cô ấy
    đến mức mà tôi làm bây giờ
    như một người cha,
    như một người mẹ đang vật lộn
    không chỉ với chính mình,
    cố gắng trở thành một người mẹ tốt,
    cố gắng có một sự nghiệp,
    một cuộc sống,
    mà còn phải vật lộn
    để nuôi dưỡng con cái mình
    và hỗ trợ một đứa trẻ,
    trong trường hợp này là tôi,
    người đang gặp khó khăn theo mọi cách,
    đặc biệt là với
    các vấn đề học tập nghiêm trọng,
    với sự tự ti,
    và chưa bao giờ thực sự đánh giá cao
    sự hy sinh của cô ấy.
    Cho tôi biết thêm
    về các vấn đề học tập
    bởi vì ai đó nhìn bạn,
    một người rất thành công
    trong cả kinh doanh
    và chính trị,
    và bạn nói rằng bạn đã gặp
    khó khăn trong học tập
    khi còn nhỏ.
    Ý tôi là, tôi là người
    ngồi ở phía sau lớp học.
    Tôi là người luôn cúi đầu.
    Tôi là người, bạn biết đấy,
    đẫm mồ hôi.
    Tôi là người run rẩy bên trong,
    không phải run rẩy về thể chất.
    Mong mỏi không bị gọi tên
    trong lớp học.
    Tôi là người mà đến giờ vẫn
    không thể đọc một bài phát biểu.
    Bạn đang ở sai lĩnh vực, tôi nghĩ, chính trị.
    Bạn không thể đọc một bài phát biểu.
    Bạn có thể dùng màn hình báo cáo,
    nhưng bạn sẽ không bao giờ thấy tôi.
    Bạn chưa thấy tôi
    đi lên đi xuống
    nhìn vào một bài phát biểu.
    Tôi không thể.
    Tôi vẫn gặp khó khăn trong việc đọc.
    Nếu tôi đọc,
    tôi phải gạch chân mọi thứ.
    Tôi phải tổ chức
    mọi thứ thông qua
    không chỉ việc gạch chân,
    mà còn tô sáng,
    và sau đó tôi quay lại
    và đọc lại những gì tôi đã gạch chân
    để hiểu chúng.
    Một khi tôi hiểu,
    ôi, tôi hiểu rất rõ.
    Ý tôi là, sau đó nó trở thành,
    bạn biết đấy, một phần của tôi,
    đó là mặt khác
    của chứng khó đọc.
    Nhưng, bạn biết đấy,
    tôi là một người
    không có triển vọng học thuật.
    Bạn biết đấy, tôi chỉ,
    tôi là đứa trẻ đó.
    Và tôi có một người chị gái
    hoàn toàn trái ngược.
    Bạn biết đấy,
    tôi đạt 960
    trong kỳ thi SAT của Mỹ.
    Chị ấy đạt 1380.
    Đối với chị ấy thật dễ dàng.
    Mọi thứ đều dễ dàng với chị ấy.
    Và vì vậy sự tương phản
    và nỗi lo lắng
    đến từ sự tương phản đó
    và cuộc đấu tranh
    mà mẹ tôi phải trải qua
    khi cố gắng
    làm việc với tôi,
    cố gắng, và, bạn biết đấy,
    đó là,
    điều đó đã đánh dấu rất nhiều,
    bạn biết đấy,
    kỷ niệm của tôi
    và những thập kỷ trong cuộc đời tôi.
    Và ở độ tuổi còn nhỏ,
    dưới 10 tuổi,
    bạn đã nghĩ gì
    về bản thân?
    Cảm giác tự nhận thức,
    hình ảnh bản thân của bạn ra sao?
    Điều mà,
    bạn biết đấy,
    tôi không nghĩ
    tôi đã chia sẻ
    chính là điều
    để lại dấu ấn sâu sắc nhất
    trong cuộc đời tôi
    khi mẹ tôi
    đang vật lộn với tôi
    và tôi sẽ không bao giờ quên.
    Và tôi không nhớ
    tôi đã phản ứng với cô ấy
    tại thời điểm đó không,
    nhưng điều đó đã đánh dấu
    nửa thế kỷ
    cuộc đời tôi
    khi cô ấy nói,
    bởi vì tôi không thể,
    tôi chỉ,
    tôi đã bỏ cuộc.
    Tôi không thể đọc
    chương này
    hay bất cứ điều gì.
    Cô ấy đã nói,
    không sao
    khi trở thành một người trung bình.
    Kiểu như,
    và tôi nghĩ về điều đó
    mọi lúc, bạn tôi.
    Ý tôi là,
    và tôi nghĩ rằng tôi đã tha thứ cho cô ấy,
    tôi nghĩ,
    bởi vì cô ấy đã
    vật lộn với tôi,
    nhưng đó là một điều rất khó
    để nói với một đứa trẻ.
    Và tôi nghĩ
    cô ấy chỉ đang nói
    không sao.
    Bạn không cần phải
    là chị của bạn.
    Bạn không phải là cha của bạn.
    Bạn biết đấy,
    bạn sẽ không bao giờ là
    người đó.
    Tôi yêu cô ấy rất nhiều
    và tôi ở đây
    là nhờ cô ấy,
    nhưng điều đó
    ảnh hưởng rất nhiều
    đến cái tôi
    khởi đầu,
    người mà,
    bạn biết đấy,
    và nó đã định hình
    người mà tôi trở thành
    bởi vì tôi đã làm
    tất cả những gì trong khả năng của tôi
    để bù đắp
    cho cuộc đấu tranh
    và cho tư duy đó
    nơi mà tôi có thể
    dễ dàng tin rằng
    và tôi có thể
    dễ dàng trở thành điều đó.
    Nói về tiền bạc
    trong gia đình,
    thỉnh thoảng tôi nghĩ đến
    khi tôi nghĩ về
    thời thơ ấu của mình,
    tiền bạc gần như trở thành
    một nhân vật khác.
    Bạn biết đấy,
    thật thú vị,
    chúng ta nói về
    các kiểu gắn bó
    và chúng ta nói rằng
    một số người có
    kiểu gắn bó tránh né,
    kiểu gắn bó lo lắng,
    kiểu gắn bó an toàn
    và tôi nghĩ về tiền bạc
    một cách tương tự.
    Nó ở trong gia đình,
    nó là một người.
    Đôi khi nó xa cách
    và không bao giờ ở đó.
    Đôi khi nó gây ra
    các cuộc tranh cãi.
    Tiền là gì trong gia đình bạn? Mối quan hệ của bạn với nó như thế nào? À, tôi đã có những trải nghiệm thú vị với tiền, vì chúng tôi không xuất phát từ một gia đình giàu có nào, nhưng cha tôi, các mối quan hệ của ông ấy gắn liền với sự giàu có phi thường, sự dồi dào về tiền bạc. Bạn bè thân thiết nhất của ông trên thế giới là những gia đình giàu nhất, và mặc dù bản thân ông không sở hữu rất nhiều tài sản, ông vẫn sống một lối sống rất giàu có. Trong khi đó, mẹ tôi, tôi và chị gái của tôi thì ở đó, sống bằng… bạn biết đấy, đồ ăn đông lạnh Swanson. Chúng tôi ăn macaroni phô mai tồi tệ. Nhưng tiền luôn là nguồn gây căng thẳng, bởi vì ông không có nhiều để cho mẹ. Bà ấy cũng không có nhiều, nói chung. Vì vậy, bà phải làm hai, ba công việc và khi tôi nói hai, ba công việc, tôi thực sự có nghĩa là hai, ba công việc. Chúng tôi luôn có khách sống trong nhà. Tôi không hiểu rõ ý nghĩa của việc khách sống trong nhà. Bà đã chuyển ra khỏi phòng ngủ của bà để cho thuê phòng. Nếu bạn muốn có thứ gì đó, tôi có một công việc giao báo, làm việc cho công ty xây dựng Jeff Hicks. Nếu bạn muốn một cái rổ bóng rổ, bạn sẽ phải làm việc để có nó. Không có gì được trao tặng, mọi thứ đều phải tự làm. Vì vậy, bà đã làm việc rất vất vả. Bà làm thêm việc phục vụ bàn. Tôi vào ngành nhà hàng. Tôi là một người dọn bàn. Có những khoảnh khắc đã thay đổi cuộc đời tôi ở đó mà tôi sẽ không bao giờ quên. Và vì vậy, tiền là một nguồn căng thẳng nhưng cũng là một điều xấu trong bối cảnh của sự dồi dào và việc nhìn thấy sự phong phú từ những người tôi biết, với quỹ tín thác, với mối quan hệ với tiền bạc, nơi họ mất động lực, mất mục đích, mất ý nghĩa và sứ mệnh của họ. Và vì vậy, khi tôi bắt đầu tham gia vào kinh doanh, đó không bao giờ là vì kiếm tiền. Mà là vì tạo ra sự khác biệt. Làm điều gì đó, xây dựng một thương hiệu. Thêm giá trị vào cuộc sống. Và nguyện vọng đó, tôi nghĩ, đã tạo ra một tư duy mà ở đó các doanh nghiệp thực sự phát triển tốt, vì đó không phải là về tiền bạc. Mà là về điều gì đó quan trọng hơn. Nó lớn hơn thế. Và do đó, mối quan hệ của tôi với tiền bạc trong khía cạnh đó thực sự đã trở thành một món quà, một hướng dẫn, trong các nỗ lực khởi nghiệp của tôi. Chứng khó đọc chắc chắn là món quà lớn nhất trong mối quan hệ với các nỗ lực khởi nghiệp. Và điều đó đã dẫn đến cái này, đã dẫn đến việc tôi đang ngồi đây với bạn với tư cách là thống đốc California trong chính trị. Khi nào bạn nhận ra mình có chứng khó đọc? Bởi vì tôi đọc rằng mẹ bạn… Bà không nói cho tôi biết. Và tôi tự hỏi, tôi nghĩ về điều này vì tôi có một vài đứa trẻ đang gặp khó khăn. Và chúng tôi đã mắc sai lầm với một trong số chúng khi nói rằng, vâng, tôi nghĩ bạn có… Và bây giờ sử dụng nó như một cái nạng. Và bà không bao giờ muốn nó trở thành một cái nạng. Bà chưa bao giờ nói cho tôi biết. Bà nói, tôi đã phát hiện ra về điều đó. Một ngày nọ, tôi về nhà sớm, trở về từ trường. Và tôi không biết tại sao, nhưng tôi đã lạc vào phòng bà. Và tôi nhìn thấy, bà có một cái bàn nhỏ và có một hồ sơ mở. Và tôi như, nhìn qua các hồ sơ. Rồi tôi thấy từ “dyslexia”. Tôi như, cái quái gì vậy? Tôi nhớ bà về nhà. Tôi nói, mẹ, cái này là gì? Bà ấy nói, bỏ cái đó đi. Tôi như, cái gì vậy? Bà ấy nói, không, và chúng tôi đã có cuộc trò chuyện này. Bà ấy nói, tôi không thực sự muốn nói với bạn về điều đó. Bạn đã gặp khó khăn với nó. Tôi nói, tôi biết tôi không thể đọc được. Bạn biết đấy, tôi ngốc, mẹ ạ. Và bà ấy nói, không, bạn không ngốc. Chúng tôi đang làm việc với tất cả những điều đó. Và bà chỉ không muốn tạo ra một sự kỳ thị. Bà không muốn tôi sử dụng nó như một cái nạng, như một cái lý do. Tôi nghĩ tôi khá tức giận về vấn đề đó trong chính cái kiểu ngôn ngữ trong đầu tôi về tốt và xấu. Tôi rất trân trọng điều đó vì đó là một cái lý do, chứ không phải là một kẻ nạn nhân. Quyết định, không phải điều kiện, định hình số phận và tương lai của chúng ta. Khái niệm này cho rằng chúng ta có thể định hình mọi thứ mà tôi không, rằng tôi không bị kỳ thị trong khía cạnh đó. Vì vậy, tôi có thể tạo ra lý do xung quanh nó. Tôi đã phải làm việc quanh nó. Tôi đã phải làm việc xuyên qua nó. Và tôi nghĩ đó là con đường mà bà đã chọn. Và theo nhiều cách, tôi biết ơn vì bà đã làm như vậy. Bạn đã từng bị bắt nạt bởi những đứa trẻ khác chưa? Vâng, chúng tôi đã ở Baltimore Street. Tôi cũng đã nói với tổng thống về điều này. Nói về Trump, chúng tôi đã nói chuyện cách đây vài tuần và ông ấy nói, này, cái tên “new scum” này, bạn biết đấy, vì ông ấy gọi tôi là “new scum”, Gavin, “new scum”. Ông ấy nói, khá đặc biệt, đúng không? Tôi nói, không, thưa bà Tổng thống, điều này không đặc biệt lắm. Và ông ấy hỏi, bạn có ý gì? Tôi nói, à, có một tên bắt nạt trên đường Baltimore ở Corte Madera, California, cậu ta thường gọi tôi là “new scum”. Ông ấy nói, à, ừ, bạn biết đấy, bất cứ điều gì, vâng. Ý tôi là, ông ấy 7, 8 hay 9 tuổi, bạn 79, thưa Tổng thống. Tôi cũng đã nói với ông ấy như vậy. Và ông ấy đã lập tức chuyển sang một chủ đề khác. Vâng, nên chúng tôi… bạn biết đấy, tôi là cậu bé có kiểu tóc bát, tóc… bạn biết đấy, kiểu tóc của thanh niên Hà Lan, bạn biết đấy, bạn có nhớ không, tôi không biết bạn có nhớ những thứ cũ của người Hà Lan không, thương hiệu Mỹ biểu tượng. Và thật dễ dàng để thấy lý do tại sao tôi có thể đã bị bắt nạt. Tôi có một bức hình ở đây về bạn. Nhìn tôi, thực sự, không phải tuyệt vời sao? Bạn có kiểu tóc, bạn có phong cách. Đây là cha tôi cố gắng tạo dựng hình ảnh, một gia đình Công giáo Ireland. Cha tôi đi học tại trường Công giáo, vì vậy theo định nghĩa, tôi cũng đi học trường Công giáo. Mẹ tôi, người rất thích những bộ đồ như thủy thủ, tất đen ngang gối. Vâng, bạn rất dễ bị bắt nạt hoặc trên xe buýt. Đây không phải là kiểu tóc tốt nhất, nhưng tất cả chúng tôi… chúng tôi đều đã trải qua hành trình với kiểu tóc của mình. Thật tuyệt. Khi tôi nghe câu chuyện của bạn và hoàn cảnh bạn lớn lên với mẹ, với việc bị bắt nạt, với những thách thức ở trường, với cha, đó là một cách thế. Và tôi biết các thống kê về những cậu bé trẻ lớn lên, đặc biệt là những cậu bé không có hình mẫu cha trong nhà.
    Rằng,
    đối với tôi,
    đó là một công thức hoàn hảo
    cho những chấn thương nhỏ T,
    có thể là chấn thương lớn T
    về một khía cạnh nào đó.
    Sau này trong cuộc đời của bạn,
    bạn đã nói về
    việc gặp khó khăn
    với rượu.
    Ừ,
    ô, đúng vậy,
    không.
    Và tôi tự hỏi
    liệu bức tranh đó,
    có phải là một phần của bức tranh
    giống nhau không,
    mà là đeo mặt nạ
    trên nhiều hình thức
    trốn chạy.
    Ừ.
    Không,
    100%.
    Chà,
    nhìn này,
    ý tôi là,
    ông nội tôi
    đã tự tử
    là một người nghiện rượu.
    Và mẹ tôi
    đã gặp khó khăn một chút
    và đó là kiểu
    tự điều trị.
    Đối với tôi,
    tôi cũng bắt đầu phát hiện
    điều đó.
    Tất nhiên,
    nhìn này,
    tôi đã vào kinh doanh rượu.
    Ừ.
    Vì vậy, tôi bị thu hút
    về mặt kinh doanh của nó.
    Mở một cửa hàng rượu
    ngay sau khi tốt nghiệp.
    Mở một số nhà hàng
    tại bảy hoặc tám nhà hàng.
    Có bốn xưởng rượu
    tính đến thời điểm hiện tại.
    Vì vậy, rượu trở thành
    chuyện thường ngày trong cuộc sống của tôi.
    Nó cũng là mối liên kết của tôi
    với cha tôi,
    đó là một hành trình hoàn toàn khác.
    Và bạn đã bắt đầu
    doanh nghiệp đó vào năm 1992,
    năm mà tôi ra đời.
    Và khi tôi,
    khi tôi,
    khi tôi ngồi đây
    32 năm sau,
    doanh nghiệp vẫn tồn tại.
    Bạn đã đặt nó vào một quỹ.
    Nó vẫn tồn tại.
    Và tôi phát triển khoảng,
    có 22 hoặc 24 doanh nghiệp
    đạt đỉnh,
    khoảng một nghìn nhân viên
    ở đỉnh cao.
    Xuất phát từ một doanh nghiệp đó.
    Tôi là nhân viên toàn thời gian duy nhất
    suốt gần hai năm.
    Ừ,
    tôi sẽ nói với bạn,
    chỉ đơn giản là sự đào tạo tuyệt vời
    cho chính trị và cuộc sống,
    chỉ cần mở doanh nghiệp của riêng bạn,
    doanh nghiệp nhỏ.
    Và đó là
    những ngày đặc biệt
    và đã từ đó
    đến một nhà hàng
    trên phố.
    Vài năm sau,
    một khách sạn,
    một xưởng rượu,
    bây giờ là bốn xưởng rượu.
    Chúng tôi đã có năm hoặc sáu khách sạn
    và chín nhà hàng
    ở đỉnh cao
    và doanh nghiệp
    vẫn tồn tại.
    Tôi đã đọc rằng
    bạn có một loại kế hoạch
    mà bạn đã trao cho nhân viên
    500 đô la
    cho một giải thưởng khoảnh khắc kỳ diệu.
    Thực ra,
    đó là một giải thưởng thất bại.
    Một giải thưởng thất bại.
    Và sau đó nó trở thành,
    chị gái tôi quản lý
    bởi vì tôi đã tham gia chính trị
    và cô ấy đã nói,
    tôi không thích khung thất bại này.
    Tôi đã nói,
    thực sự,
    nó tốt nhất.
    Tôi yêu thất bại.
    Tôi giỏi ở đó.
    Người dyslexic là những người giỏi nhất ở đó.
    Không có gì tuyến tính
    trong cuộc sống của chúng tôi.
    Nó là tiến lên nhanh chóng,
    bỏ lỡ 100% các cú sút
    mà bạn không thực hiện.
    Vì vậy, bạn đã trao cho nhân viên
    500 đô la nếu họ thất bại.
    Ừ,
    tôi có một ví dụ tuyệt vời,
    chỉ là một ví dụ rất ngắn.
    Vì vậy, tôi có một khách sạn nhỏ
    ở vùng Squaw Valley,
    khu vực Hồ Tahoe,
    và có rất nhiều muỗi
    trong những tháng mùa hè.
    Đó là một motel cũ
    được xây dựng cho Thế vận hội Mùa đông,
    Thế vận hội Mùa đông năm 1960,
    được xây dựng vào năm 1959
    cho các đại biểu.
    Nó lẽ ra phải bị phá hủy.
    Nó được ghép lại với nhau
    và chúng tôi đã giữ nó lại
    nhưng không có điều hòa không khí.
    Vì vậy, bạn để cửa mở,
    bạn để cửa sổ mở,
    nhưng vào mùa hè,
    muỗi tràn vào,
    khiến khách hàng phát điên.
    Vì vậy, chúng tôi có một nhân viên trực đêm,
    bạn biết,
    những nhân viên trực đêm điên rồ đó,
    và anh ấy nhận được rất nhiều phản ánh
    về muỗi liên tục
    và một ngày nọ,
    anh ấy tự quyết định trước khi đi làm
    vào lúc 11 giờ đêm
    và anh ấy đã mua một đống cá trê
    tại cửa hàng
    bởi vì có rất nhiều hồ xung quanh doanh nghiệp
    và anh ấy nghĩ rằng
    đó là nơi mà tất cả muỗi bắt đầu.
    Vì vậy, cá trê sẽ ăn
    ấu trùng của muỗi
    và anh ấy sẽ giải quyết vấn đề.
    Vì vậy, anh ấy tự quyết định
    mua một đống cá trê,
    thả vào các hồ xung quanh khách sạn.
    Chà,
    khoảng bốn giờ sáng,
    kỹ sư này gọi cho tôi,
    một anh chàng lớn lên ở đó,
    anh ấy nói,
    những con gấu trúc
    đã có một bữa tiệc ăn uống
    và chạy qua khách sạn
    bởi vì cửa mở
    với một đống cá bay trong miệng
    và cá ở khắp mọi nơi,
    và Ludo đã nói,
    bạn phải đuổi việc con trai của thằng đó,
    đơn giản là một kẻ ngu ngốc.
    Và tôi bắt đầu cười,
    đi lên đó vào sáng hôm sau,
    gặp anh ấy
    và tôi nói,
    đây là một điều kỳ diệu.
    Bạn đã cố gắng giải quyết
    một vấn đề khốn nạn
    và chúng tôi đã tạo ra giải thưởng thất bại
    và tôi đã tặng phần thưởng lớn nhất cho
    mỗi tháng cho người mắc lỗi lớn nhất
    và vào cuối năm,
    chúng tôi sẽ tập hợp tất cả lại,
    thất bại của tháng Giêng,
    thất bại của tháng Hai
    và chúng tôi sẽ có giải thưởng
    thất bại của năm
    và đã làm điều đó trong nhiều năm
    cho đến khi chị gái tôi nói,
    chúng ta sẽ gọi nó là
    giải thưởng khoảnh khắc kỳ diệu.
    Nhưng nó liên quan đến sáng kiến,
    nắm bắt sáng kiến,
    chịu trách nhiệm,
    sở hữu,
    thử nghiệm những điều mới,
    xem điều gì hiệu quả,
    tinh chỉnh,
    tinh thần doanh nhân.
    Nó không phải là tuyến tính.
    Nó là tư duy sáng tạo
    bên ngoài khuôn khổ.
    Đó là điều mà một người dyslexic
    theo định nghĩa phải làm
    và đó là điều mà tôi nghĩ
    một doanh nghiệp thành công
    cần phải làm
    và nó thực sự đã trao quyền,
    các nhân viên của chúng tôi yêu thích điều đó
    bởi vì họ cảm thấy được nhìn nhận và lắng nghe.
    Và an toàn, tôi đoán.
    Và an toàn
    bởi vì họ như là,
    chừng nào họ làm điều đó với,
    bạn biết đấy,
    không ai nhảy xuống vách đá ở đây
    chúng tôi không khuyến khích,
    bạn biết đấy,
    sự liều lĩnh,
    mà là chấp nhận rủi ro.
    Và nó thực sự đã cho phép
    doanh nghiệp
    không chỉ tồn tại
    mà bắt đầu phát triển
    theo những cách mà tôi chưa bao giờ tưởng tượng được.
    Tôi nghĩ điều đó thực sự quan trọng.
    Đó thực sự là một bài học quan trọng
    đối với rất nhiều chủ doanh nghiệp,
    đặc biệt là trong những thời điểm thay đổi như thế này
    khi mọi thứ đang di chuyển
    quá nhanh trong AI và công nghệ
    đến mức hầu hết mọi người
    được khuyến khích
    chỉ để kinh doanh như thường lệ.
    Bạn biết đấy,
    bảo vệ vị trí của chúng tôi
    nếu chúng tôi thành công
    hoặc, bạn biết đấy,
    kéo dài quy ước
    hay bất cứ điều gì điều đó có thể có nghĩa
    nhưng các doanh nghiệp
    áp dụng cách tiếp cận đó
    thực sự có lợi thế
    trong những thời điểm thay đổi nhanh chóng này.
    Ừ, không,
    và nhìn,
    ý tôi là,
    quay trở lại,
    bạn biết đấy,
    tôi nhớ
    có một cuốn sách
    Tom Peters đã viết
    có tên là The Pursuit of Wow.
    Tôi có ý nói rằng, nếu có một cuốn sách nào đó mà khiến tôi cảm thấy chạm tới cốt lõi của mình, thể hiện tất cả những gì tôi muốn trở thành, thì đó là cuốn sách mà ông ấy đã nói về việc thuê nụ cười, đào tạo kỹ năng, về việc tìm kiếm những nhà lãnh đạo xuất sắc và phát triển những chủ sở hữu cùng với đội ngũ lãnh đạo của bạn. Ông ấy đã nói rằng, bạn biết đấy, tôi nhớ khách sạn Ritz-Carlton đã thực sự trao tiền mặt cho nhân viên dọn dẹp phòng, và cho họ khả năng sử dụng số tiền đó khi cần thiết để giải quyết vấn đề cho khách hàng. Họ đã tạo ra sự sở hữu từ những nhân viên tuyến đầu mà thường bị đánh giá thấp hoặc không được coi trọng. Ông ấy đã đề cập đến sự đa dạng như một yếu tố thiết yếu trong kinh doanh, giữa tất cả những điều chống đối sự thức tỉnh và chống DEI mà chúng ta đang phải đối mặt ở Hoa Kỳ. Nói một cách khác, từ góc độ kinh doanh, có một sự bắt buộc trong công việc để thúc đẩy sự đa dạng. Nhưng chính Peter đã tạo ra tư duy đó trong tôi từ nhiều thập kỷ trước, trong kinh doanh, với định nghĩa sâu rộng về sự đa dạng trong mọi phương diện. Vì vậy, doanh nghiệp trở thành một cuộc tìm kiếm điều kỳ diệu, sự ngạc nhiên, sự tái tạo, sự dám nghĩ dám làm, và năng lượng. Vì vậy, tư tưởng cốt lõi cứ phát triển trong không gian đó. Nhà hàng, khách sạn, vườn nho, và những người dám nghĩ dám làm, những người muốn xây dựng một thương hiệu, xây dựng điều gì đó đặc biệt. Đây không phải là về tiền bạc. Điều này là về việc theo đuổi ý nghĩa và mục đích, những khoảnh khắc.
    Vậy tại sao bạn rời bỏ điều đó để làm chính trị? Tôi biết. Có một cuộc điện thoại, hai điều đã xảy ra. Tôi nhận được một cuộc gọi. Tôi đang điều hành cửa hàng rượu vang, chuẩn bị đóng cửa, làm sổ sách và kế toán. Bạn biết đấy, kho hàng nằm trong căn hộ của tôi. Một đêm, ngay trước khi tôi chuẩn bị đóng cửa, có một người đàn ông chạy vào cửa hàng, rất lo lắng. Anh ấy hỏi, bạn có thể giúp tôi không? Champange nào ngon? Chỉ là, tôi phải nhận cuộc gọi. Anh ấy nói, cảm ơn bạn. Để nó lại đi. Tôi nói, nó ngon mà. Anh ấy hỏi, bạn có thể gói nó không? Tôi nói, được, tôi sẽ gói nó. Anh ấy nói, cảm ơn bạn, anh bạn. Khoảng 30 phút sau, người đàn ông quay lại. Tôi nghĩ, ôi không. Như thế này có thể đã sai rồi. Nhưng anh ấy có bạn gái đi cùng. Anh ấy gõ lên tường và tôi mở lại khóa. Anh ấy vào trong, nói, tôi chỉ muốn giới thiệu bạn với vị hôn thê của tôi. Tôi nói, wow. Anh ấy nói, à, rượu champagne của bạn, tôi vừa mới cầu hôn cô ấy ở gần đó tại Cung điện Nghệ thuật. Và chúng tôi rất thích rượu champagne. Tôi chỉ muốn nói lời cảm ơn. Bạn đã thật sự tốt với tôi. Tôi thực sự nhớ rằng đã ngồi đó khóc sau khi anh ấy rời đi. Như vậy là đủ mọi thứ. Đây là kinh doanh, anh bạn. Không phải là một giao dịch. Đó là các mối quan hệ. Nói về những khoảnh khắc. Phép màu, anh bạn. Đó là tất cả. Đến điểm của bạn, tôi nghĩ, đó là điều này. Đây là hạnh phúc của tôi. Tôi sẽ tiếp tục làm điều này mãi mãi. Và rồi tôi nhận được một cuộc gọi từ thị trưởng San Francisco.
    Tôi có thể hỏi bạn về điều đó không? Khi người đàn ông đó đến cùng với vị hôn thê của mình, tại sao điều đó lại có ý nghĩa với bạn? Tôi vẫn có thể nhìn thấy sự xúc động trên khuôn mặt bạn, hơn 20 năm sau. Bởi vì những gì tôi đã làm có ý nghĩa. Nó quan trọng. Theo một cách mà tôi chưa bao giờ nghĩ đến. Tôi nghĩ đó chỉ là một giao dịch. Tôi nghĩ anh ấy đang mua cái gì đó. Tôi đang bán cái gì đó. Không phải vậy, anh bạn. Nó như một khoảnh khắc rất quan trọng trong cuộc đời của anh ấy. Kinh doanh đã thay đổi sau đó. Đây không phải là kinh doanh. Đó chỉ là, đó là một đề xuất khác. Rồi bạn nhận được một cuộc gọi. Và tôi nhận được một cuộc gọi và làm mọi thứ trở nên rối tung. Willie Brown nói, này, bạn đã mở cửa hàng này và tôi đã đọc bạn đang phàn nàn về việc lấy giấy phép. Nó mất quá lâu. Ông ấy là Willie Brown. Willie Brown, thị trưởng San Francisco, cựu chủ tịch của Đại hội California, một trong những chính trị gia năng động nhất, một trong những chính trị gia phi thường nhất trong lịch sử California, tôi sẽ tranh luận rằng, trong lịch sử Hoa Kỳ. Và tôi không nói điều này một cách nhẹ nhàng. Một số nhà lãnh đạo vĩ đại nhất thế giới sẽ xác định Willie Brown là một trong những nhà lãnh đạo chính trị có khả năng biến đổi nhất. Và có một vài bài báo trên báo viết về việc tôi đã phàn nàn về giấy phép và bãi đỗ xe. Khi ông ấy gọi cho tôi, ông ấy nói, đây là Willie Brown. Tôi như, ồ, ông thị trưởng. Ông ấy nói, này, hãy xuống đây. Thứ Tư tới, tôi sẽ đưa bạn vào Ủy ban Điện ảnh. Tôi nghĩ, điều này thật tuyệt. Tôi sẽ tham gia Ủy ban Điện ảnh. Tôi năm 20 tuổi, có một cửa hàng rượu, sắp mở một nhà hàng mà tôi đang làm việc. Và giờ ông ấy đã đưa tôi vào Ủy ban Điện ảnh. Tôi xuống Tòa thị chính vào thứ Tư tiếp theo. Có khoảng 20 hoặc 30 người. Ông ấy đang tuyên thệ cho một vài người vào các ủy ban. Và ông ấy nói, Gavin Newsom, bạn biết đấy, vừa mở một cửa hàng rượu ở gần đó, blah, blah, blah. Là chủ tịch mới của Ủy ban Bãi đỗ xe và Giao thông. Tôi nghĩ, tôi đã nghĩ tôi sẽ vào Ủy ban Điện ảnh. Thực sự không ai nói cho tôi hoặc bất kỳ ai. Tôi thậm chí không biết chủ tịch có nghĩa là gì. Và bỗng nhiên, năm 26, 27 tuổi, tôi giờ đã là chủ tịch của Ủy ban Bãi đỗ xe và Giao thông San Francisco. Ông ấy đã bất ngờ đặt tôi vào vị trí đó. Cảm hứng, sự tuyệt vọng. Tôi không biết tôi đã làm gì. Và đó là cách sự nghiệp chính trị của tôi bắt đầu. Thực sự cuộc gọi điện thoại đó, cuộc bổ nhiệm đó, không phải vào điện ảnh, mà vào bãi đỗ xe và giao thông. Và điều đó đã đánh dấu một khoảnh khắc khá quan trọng trong cuộc đời tôi khi nhìn lại. Và đó là một khoảnh khắc quyết định trong con đường của bạn vì bạn đã đi đúng hướng để tiếp tục trở thành một doanh nhân có lẽ suốt phần còn lại của cuộc đời mình.
    Vâng, vâng. Nó có thể đã là người khác. Chúa ơi. Vậy hãy cho tôi biết sự chuyển tiếp giữa khoảnh khắc đó khi ông ấy đặt bạn vào vai trò này đến bây giờ. Tôi biết rằng “sự chuyển tiếp” là một từ khó sử dụng để mô tả hành trình đó, nhưng sự chuyển tiếp đó là gì? Ồ, tôi chỉ… tôi có nghĩa là, tôi đã cúi đầu làm việc.
    Tôi đã học mọi thứ mà tôi có thể về sự khiêm nhường của việc không biết điều gì mình không biết và nhận ra rằng, bạn biết đấy, thành công để lại những dấu hiệu, và bạn có thể học hỏi từ mọi người. Và tôi bắt đầu lắng nghe, học hỏi từ mọi người, hấp thụ kiến thức. Tôi đã cống hiến bản thân mình trong vai trò ủy viên giao thông đỗ xe đến nỗi chín tháng sau, có một vị trí trống trong hội đồng giám sát của chúng tôi, hội đồng thành phố. Willie Brown nói, bạn biết không? Bạn đã làm một công việc khá tốt ở đây, bạn ạ. Tôi sẽ cho bạn một cơ hội. Vậy là tôi là một người tương đối trẻ. Bây giờ tôi là doanh nhân trong hội đồng thành phố của chúng tôi, kiêm hội đồng giám sát. Và tôi đã bắt đầu chạy đà ngay. Tôi đã mở vài doanh nghiệp mới. Đó chỉ là một công việc bán thời gian, nhưng tôi bắt đầu cống hiến nhiều hơn như một công việc toàn thời gian. Tôi đã phải lập một nhóm quản lý để bắt đầu quản lý doanh nghiệp và bắt đầu cống hiến nhiều hơn với tư cách là một ủy viên. Tôi đã dành gần bảy, tám năm để làm điều đó. Và tôi lúc đó cũng khá trẻ, 33, 34. Khi Willie Brown bị hết nhiệm kỳ với tư cách là thị trưởng và có chỗ trống cho ghế thị trưởng. Và tôi nghĩ rằng ở độ tuổi 33, tôi đã công bố, tại sao lại không? Bạn biết đấy, hãy thử một lần. Bạn sẽ không bao giờ có được 100% cơ hội nếu không thử. Và tôi nghĩ, tôi đứng thứ ba hoặc thứ tư và quyết định sẽ tham gia tranh cử cho vị trí thị trưởng San Francisco. Bạn đã trở thành thị trưởng của San Francisco. Bạn có một ảnh hưởng lớn trong thời gian bạn làm thị trưởng của San Francisco. Một trong những điều mà mọi người nhớ về bạn là thái độ của bạn đối với các cặp đồng giới và Đạo luật Bảo vệ Hôn nhân, nơi bạn đã có một quan điểm gây tranh cãi vào thời điểm đó bằng cách cho phép, tôi tin là, các cặp đồng giới ở bang đó có thể nhận được giấy phép kết hôn của họ? Chà, đúng vậy, đó là năm 2004 và đảng của tôi, Đảng Dân chủ, không, mọi người không hứng thú, thậm chí không thúc đẩy, thực tế là họ gần như hoàn toàn phản đối hôn nhân đồng giới. Và tôi đã có một trải nghiệm ở Washington, D.C. Nancy Pelosi, Chủ tịch Hạ viện, đã mời tôi với tư cách là một vị thị trưởng mới để lắng nghe George Bush phát biểu trong bài phát biểu Thông điệp Liên bang cuối cùng của ông ấy. Và tôi có mặt ở đó với một chiếc vé phụ, vé của chồng bà ấy, và tôi đứng trên cao lắng nghe George Bush phát biểu. Trong bài phát biểu, ông ấy nói về cuộc chiến Iraq, ông nói về rất nhiều điều thú vị. Và ông ấy kết thúc với việc, đến lúc cần một sự sửa đổi hiến pháp để cấm hôn nhân đồng giới. Và mọi người bắt đầu vỗ tay. Những người xung quanh tôi đang vỗ tay. Tôi nghĩ, Chúa ơi. Tôi đi ra ngoài và phải để điện thoại di động, những ngày đầu của điện thoại di động. Tất cả chúng tôi đều xếp hàng chờ lấy lại điện thoại di động. Và tôi nhớ cặp đôi ngay bên cạnh tôi trong khi tôi đang đứng chờ xếp hàng sau bài phát biểu nói, đó là một bài phát biểu thật tuyệt vời. Tổng thống đã phát biểu. Tôi thật sự mệt mỏi. Tôi sẽ không bao giờ quên những gì mà những người này đã nói. Tôi thật sự mệt mỏi với chương trình nghị sự của người đồng tính. Và tôi thì, tôi thật sự quay lại và nói chương trình nghị sự của người đồng tính. Đó là một thuật ngữ mang nghĩa tiêu cực. Và tất cả những gì tôi nghĩ là, thật là, tôi muốn tự giới thiệu mình với tư cách là thị trưởng của San Francisco. Tôi không nói một lời nào. Tôi thậm chí không nghĩ về bình đẳng hôn nhân. Khi tôi tranh cử cho thị trưởng, không ai hỏi tôi về điều đó. Họ đang nói về quan hệ đối tác trong nước. Đó chính là khoảnh khắc mà tôi bước ra ngoài, sử dụng điện thoại di động đó, gọi cho trưởng phòng của tôi, và nói, chúng ta cần làm gì đó về việc này. Anh ấy nói, ồ, ý bạn là gì? Tôi nói, ồ, tôi sẽ quay lại vào ngày mai. Hãy làm gì đó. Vậy là tôi vừa mới được bầu làm thị trưởng và đã đưa ra quyết định vào lúc đó. Và vài tuần sau, chúng tôi bắt đầu kết hôn cho các cặp đồng giới. Chúng tôi đã kết hôn cho Phyllis Lyon và Del Martin. Họ đã ở bên nhau gần 50 năm. Bạn nói về niềm tin, tình yêu và sự tận tụy, sự kiên định, điều mà hôn nhân nên hướng tới. Họ đã bị từ chối khả năng kết hôn chỉ vì một lý do. Họ là một cặp đồng giới. Và chúng tôi đã quyết định thử thách luật pháp và được thông báo rằng mọi người phát hiện ra và họ sẽ không cho phép chúng tôi tiến hành với cuộc hôn nhân này. Chúng tôi đã định thực hiện một lễ kết hôn đơn giản và rồi tiến hành kiện tụng. Tòa án mở cửa lúc 9 giờ. Họ sẽ ra lệnh cấm tạm thời. Tôi nhận ra mình là thị trưởng. Tôi có thể mở Cục Tư pháp sớm hơn. Vậy là chúng tôi đã mở Cục Tư pháp lúc 8 giờ. Chúng tôi đã kết hôn cho Phyllis và Lyon, Phyllis và Lyon, và Del, thay vì vậy. Và lúc 9 giờ, tòa án mở cửa và chúng tôi chờ đợi quyết định và thẩm phán nói không có tổn hại không thể khắc phục. Không có lý do gì để có một lệnh cấm tạm thời, có nghĩa là chúng tôi có thể tiếp tục kết hôn cho các cặp đồng giới, điều mà chúng tôi không tưởng tượng được. Nhảy tới, điều mà chúng tôi gọi là mùa đông của tình yêu ở San Francisco. Không phải mùa hè của tình yêu. Tháng 2 năm 2004, 4.036 cặp đôi từ 46 tiểu bang và tám quốc gia đã đến San Francisco để sống cuộc sống công khai của họ, để nói “Tôi đồng ý” trong trải nghiệm kỳ diệu này đã khiến tôi thật sự rung động và thay đổi mối quan hệ của tôi với đảng của mình. Họ đã rất tức giận. Họ đã giận dữ. Đảng Dân chủ. Vâng. Và tôi đã phải nghe một trận rầy la từ tất cả họ. Những người mà tôi rất kính trọng, ngưỡng mộ, nhưng cùng một người, cùng một người đã nói, tất cả bọn họ. Ý tôi là, đây là lời nhắc nhở mà mọi người hay nói, bất kể bạn làm gì, hãy làm điều đúng đắn. Hãy làm những gì bạn nghĩ là đúng. Tôi nhớ rằng đó là những gì họ đã nói, bạn biết đấy, chàng trai trẻ, chúc mừng bạn đã kết hôn. Hãy làm những gì bạn nghĩ là đúng. Bạn làm những gì bạn nghĩ là đúng. Ai mà biết được? Ai mà lại như vậy? Ý tôi là, tôi nhớ những điều đó. Ai là bạn mà lại làm những gì bạn vừa làm? Và nó như một cú sốc khiến tôi hoang mang về toàn bộ trò này trong chính trị. Như là, tôi đang làm gì? Tôi vừa làm gì? Nhưng đó là một ấn tượng đầu tiên đáng nhớ với tư cách là thị trưởng. Và điều đó đã bắt đầu cuộc sống chính trị của tôi. Khi tôi xem lại các mốc sự kiện ở đây, bạn đã thắng cuộc bầu cử thị trưởng của mình vào năm 2003.
    Mẹ của bạn đang bị,
    bệnh trong những năm,
    trước khi điều đó xảy ra.
    Bà được chẩn đoán
    bị ung thư vú.
    Đúng vậy.
    Thế nên bạn đang phải đối mặt
    với người phụ nữ trong cuộc đời bạn
    người đã rõ ràng có
    vai trò ảnh hưởng nhất
    trong việc hình thành con người bạn
    và ủng hộ bạn
    khi mọi thứ đang chống lại bạn
    và khi không ai khác ở đó.
    Trong giai đoạn trước đó,
    và khi sự nghiệp chính trị của bạn
    bắt đầu nở rộ,
    bà đang phải chịu đựng
    với căn bệnh ung thư vú.
    Đúng vậy.
    Và cũng đang phải chịu đựng
    với việc con trai bà tham gia chính trị.
    Bà không muốn tôi
    vào chính trị.
    Thực tế,
    điều lớn nhất
    mà bà hối tiếc
    là tôi đang
    đi trên con đường
    mà cha tôi
    quan tâm đến,
    đi đến cuộc ly hôn của họ
    ngay từ đầu.
    Ông theo đuổi chính trị
    và thua trong hai kỳ bầu cử
    cho thượng nghị sĩ bang
    và cho giám sát viên quận,
    có phần trớ trêu,
    chỗ mà tôi đã giữ.
    Đã thua cả hai cuộc đua,
    mắc nợ,
    bị xấu hổ,
    thất bại,
    nói rằng ông đã có một cú sốc tâm lý,
    và bỏ đi.
    Đó là lúc họ ly hôn
    và bà thấy tôi
    đi trên con đường của ông
    và bà thích
    nhìn thấy tôi trong kinh doanh.
    Cuối cùng bà đã làm việc cho tôi
    như là kế toán của chúng tôi
    và bà thấy đam mê của tôi
    trong kinh doanh.
    Bà đã nói,
    tại sao
    bạn lại tham gia chính trị?
    Đừng làm điều này với chính mình.
    Và bà thực sự,
    gần như đang ở trên giường bệnh,
    nói rằng,
    xin hãy đừng làm điều này.
    Đừng tiếp tục làm điều này.
    Bà thực sự rất buồn
    vì tôi đã tham gia từ đó.
    Điều này tôi thường nghĩ,
    bạn biết đấy,
    có những ngày
    mà tôi nghĩ,
    thì,
    bà đã bảo tôi như vậy.
    Bạn biết đấy,
    khi bạn ngồi ở đó
    đối diện với một cuộc bãi nhiệm,
    bạn cảm thấy như,
    đã bảo mà.
    Một cuộc bãi nhiệm cho những ai
    không biết là gì?
    Không,
    họ chỉ,
    bạn biết đấy,
    trong suốt thời gian,
    bạn có một nhiệm kỳ bốn năm
    và hai năm sau,
    họ nói,
    bạn,
    và họ thu thập chữ ký
    để cố gắng loại bỏ bạn.
    Và tôi đã phải đối mặt với điều đó
    chỉ hai lần trong nửa thế kỷ
    tại California.
    Tôi đã đánh bại nó một cách áp đảo.
    Nhưng đó là một điều
    thật khó để trải nghiệm
    và để thấy sự quốc gia hóa
    của cuộc bãi nhiệm đó.
    Ý tôi là,
    toàn bộ Đảng Cộng hòa
    đã ra sức
    để cố gắng
    đưa tôi ra khỏi chính trị.
    Và bạn suy nghĩ về
    những gì mẹ bạn đã nói,
    bạn sẽ thấy,
    có thể bà đã đúng.
    Bạn nhận ra vào lúc nào
    rằng mẹ bạn
    sẽ không vượt qua được
    căn bệnh ung thư vú của mình?
    Bà đã trải qua,
    cũng thường là như vậy,
    bà đã chiến đấu lại,
    nó đã thuyên giảm,
    và rồi bùm,
    nó lại tấn công lần nữa
    và đã di căn
    và nó,
    và bà đã,
    tôi sẽ nói với bạn,
    điều này tôi sẽ không bao giờ,
    không bao giờ,
    không bao giờ khuyên ai làm.
    Đó chỉ là
    trải nghiệm cá nhân của tôi.
    Bà đã gọi cho tôi,
    để lại một tin nhắn thoại.
    Hãy tưởng tượng nhận được
    tin nhắn thoại này.
    Tôi rất bận
    với tất cả những việc này
    và rõ ràng là
    không chú ý đủ
    đến bà
    và bà đang nhấn mạnh
    điều đó.
    Bà nói,
    xin chào con,
    đây là mẹ của con.
    Mẹ biết rằng con không
    gặp mẹ đã một thời gian
    nhưng thứ Năm tới,
    mẹ sẽ không còn ở đây
    nên con có thể muốn
    đến vào thứ Tư tới
    bởi vì đó sẽ là
    ngày cuối cùng của mẹ.
    Bà đã để lại một tin nhắn thoại
    như vậy.
    Tôi đã gọi cho chị gái,
    tôi nói,
    điều này là gì vậy?
    Cô ấy nói,
    bà ấy đang khóc
    và nói
    bà ấy vừa nói với tôi
    bà sẽ thực hiện
    một cuộc tự sát có sự trợ giúp
    vì tình hình rất tồi tệ.
    Bà đã để lại một tin nhắn thoại
    và tuần đó tôi đã ở đó
    và chị gái tôi và tôi
    đang ở trong phòng của bà,
    bác sĩ vào,
    cho bà một số
    cái mà cuối cùng hóa ra
    là Oxycontin.
    Tôi nhớ như lúc đầu
    như thế nào là những viên thuốc này?
    Bà ấy đã phải uống chúng
    trước khi bác sĩ đến một giờ.
    Bà ấy uống.
    Chúa ơi,
    chúng tôi đang lướt qua
    những bức ảnh như thế này,
    người ơi.
    Đó là tất cả những gì bà ấy muốn thấy.
    Tất cả những bức ảnh cũ
    của chúng tôi lớn lên
    và chúng tôi ngồi đó
    chị gái tôi bên trái,
    tôi bên phải.
    Mẹ tôi ở đó
    uống những viên thuốc này
    đợi bác sĩ đến
    và bà ấy đang lục lọi
    qua tất cả những album ảnh cũ
    của chúng tôi lớn lên
    nói về những khoảnh khắc này.
    Đúng vậy.
    Thôi nào, người ơi.
    Và,
    à,
    nhưng
    muốn có mặt ở đó cho bà.
    Bác sĩ vào
    và chăm sóc
    và bà bắt đầu thở gấp.
    Chị gái tôi chạy ra ngoài.
    Bác sĩ đã đi rồi
    và tôi đã như,
    tôi,
    bà ấy đang thở gấp
    và tôi chỉ
    ngồi đấy
    nắm tay bà
    và bà,
    và hơi thở cuối cùng của bà
    và,
    ừ,
    tôi chỉ ngồi đó
    và chị gái tôi,
    không ai
    đi vào,
    tôi cảm thấy như một ngày,
    cảm giác như hàng giờ
    nhưng có thể chỉ khoảng
    10 phút
    trước khi ai đó cuối cùng cũng vào
    chỉ ngồi đó
    với mẹ tôi
    người đã qua đời
    và,
    và không nhận ra
    vào lúc đó
    cái khoảnh khắc đó
    đại diện cho điều gì,
    cuối cùng có nghĩa là gì.
    À,
    tôi hối tiếc
    điều đó thật khó.
    Tôi không,
    để có mặt cho
    cuộc tự sát có sự trợ giúp.
    À, nhân tiện,
    tôi tự hào,
    chúng tôi đã thay đổi luật
    tại California.
    Điều đó có lẽ
    đã được thực hiện bất hợp pháp.
    Tôi không muốn biết
    và nếu bạn muốn
    đến tìm tôi,
    hãy đến tìm tôi.
    Um,
    bà ấy cần phải làm điều đó.
    Bà ấy bị đau đớn quá,
    khổ sở,
    giờ thì làm điều đó hợp pháp
    nhưng không ở thời điểm
    khi bà ấy thực hiện.
    Um,
    và,
    um,
    đó là,
    à,
    đó là một khoảnh khắc
    và,
    um,
    bạn biết đấy,
    đó là,
    bạn biết đấy,
    vừa trở thành thị trưởng.
    Trở lại
    để thực hiện
    những sai lầm ngu ngốc,
    người ơi.
    Bạn biết đấy,
    bạn là một thị trưởng mới toanh.
    Bạn bị áp lực.
    Bạn đang cố gắng tìm ra
    chính mình.
    Bạn mất mẹ.
    Không có lý do nào cả.
    Um,
    đó không phải là một cuộc hôn nhân
    đang đi xuống.
    Bạn biết đấy,
    đó là,
    đó là,
    bạn biết đấy.
    Bà đã nói gì với bạn
    khi bà,
    tôi không hề biết
    rằng bạn đã ngồi đó
    khi bà ấy được tiêm
    các loại thuốc
    đã cướp đi mạng sống của bà.
    Các cuộc trò chuyện đó là gì?
    Bạn nói gì
    với ai đó
    trong một tình huống như vậy
    trong đó đó là những
    cuộc trò chuyện cuối cùng mà bạn có?
    Đó là,
    um,
    bạn nói những điều
    hời hợt,
    bạn biết đấy,
    chỉ cần biết rằng bạn có ý nghĩa
    đến mức nào đối với tôi,
    tôi yêu bạn như thế nào,
    và bà ấy,
    um,
    tất cả những gì bà ấy quan tâm
    là chỉ cần đừng quên bà.
    Bà ấy đã nói điều đó.
    Đó là lời cuối cùng
    bà ấy nói.
    Chúa là nhân chứng của tôi.
    Đừng quên tôi.
    Trời ơi.
    Và,
    và một trong những điều
    tôi tự hào nhất,
    chị gái tôi,
    chúng tôi đã bắt đầu thông qua
    Plump Jack của chúng tôi.
    Chúng tôi đã thành lập một quỹ.
    Um,
    vì vậy mỗi năm
    chúng tôi gây quỹ
    cho nghiên cứu ung thư
    nhân danh mẹ tôi.
    Và,
    um,
    và chúng tôi sẽ không bao giờ quên bà.
    Và,
    uh,
    nhưng cô ấy là người
    mà có thể dễ dàng
    bị quên lãng,
    người ạ.
    Um,
    cô ấy chỉ,
    bạn biết đấy,
    đã hy sinh mọi thứ
    cho hai đứa trẻ.
    Cô ấy,
    bạn biết đấy,
    đã để lại cho chúng tôi
    trải nghiệm nhân cách của cô ấy,
    không có tiền,
    không có gì cả.
    Ý tôi là,
    cô ấy chỉ,
    cô ấy đã vật lộn với cuộc sống của chính mình
    và,
    uh,
    chỉ cho chúng tôi tất cả.
    Và,
    uh,
    vì vậy,
    bạn biết đấy,
    đó là,
    và tất cả chúng ta đều có những người
    trong cuộc đời như vậy.
    Thật là một món quà.
    Và,
    uh,
    bạn biết đấy,
    tôi đã được ban phước.
    Có điều gì chưa nói ra không?
    Đôi khi khi mọi người
    đã tiến bước
    và bạn trưởng thành
    như một người lớn
    và một người đàn ông,
    bạn,
    bạn nhìn mọi thứ khác đi
    và bạn,
    tôi đã đề cập trước đó
    có thể là
    quá thành thật.
    Tôi tưởng tượng
    sau khi điều này kết thúc,
    bố mẹ tôi sẽ nói,
    “Mày đang làm cái quái gì vậy,
    bạn biết đấy,
    ai quan tâm?”
    Cuộc sống quá ngắn.
    Um,
    nhưng khi tôi nói,
    bạn biết đấy,
    khi cô ấy nói về
    việc trở nên bình thường,
    tôi,
    tôi không đối chất với cô ấy
    về điều đó.
    Đó chỉ là,
    điều đó có lẽ đối với tôi
    hơn là với cô ấy.
    Khoảnh khắc này không phải về tôi.
    Nó về việc,
    bạn biết đấy,
    thật sự quan trọng
    đối với cô ấy khi đi qua
    tất cả những kỷ niệm này.
    Và một lần nữa,
    điều đó là như vậy,
    người ạ.
    Đó là những kỷ niệm,
    những khoảnh khắc.
    Nó không liên quan đến điều gì khác.
    Khi bạn trở thành,
    bạn thắng trong cuộc đua
    để trở thành thống đốc
    của San Francisco.
    Bạn có nghĩ về
    cô ấy không?
    Bạn có nghĩ,
    bạn có ước cô ấy
    có thể thấy không?
    Ừ.
    Tôi,
    tôi ước cô ấy có thể thấy
    bốn đứa trẻ của tôi.
    Ừ.
    Ừ,
    ừ,
    ừ.
    Đến đi.
    Tôi đã được tuyên thệ
    như là thống đốc
    của California
    và vợ tôi ở đó
    và chúng tôi có một bé trai ba tuổi.
    Nó có núm vú giả của mình
    và cái chăn của nó
    và nó,
    giữa bài phát biểu của tôi,
    chạy lên.
    Tôi đang phát biểu,
    lại căng thẳng.
    Tôi không đọc bài phát biểu
    nên đó là một bài đọc,
    tôi phải đọc.
    Vậy tôi như,
    tôi không thể nhìn
    vì tôi sẽ
    mất tập trung
    vào,
    vào màn hình.
    Và con trai tôi chạy lên.
    Vợ tôi rất hồi hộp
    khi chạy lên sân khấu
    bởi vì nó như,
    đây là một chuyện lớn đấy.
    Và nó chạy ngay lên,
    ôm tôi
    và mọi người kiểu như
    di chuyển xung quanh
    khán giả.
    Tôi như,
    tôi phải làm gì đây?
    Và tôi như chỉ theo bản năng
    nhấc nó lên
    và nó để đầu mình
    ngay bên cạnh
    và bắt đầu ngủ gật.
    Vậy là tôi đã đọc bài phát biểu
    cùng con trai tôi.
    Không ai nhớ
    một từ nào tôi đã nói.
    Tôi không nhớ một từ nào.
    Mọi người nhớ
    cảm giác như thế nào.
    Và tất cả những gì tôi nghĩ
    vào khoảnh khắc đó,
    nếu mẹ tôi còn ở đây
    để thấy điều đó,
    đó không phải là thống đốc.
    Đó là,
    đó là một người cha.
    Và,
    Ừ,
    xin lỗi,
    chị.
    Nó không phù hợp.
    Tha lỗi cho tôi,
    nhưng cái đó,
    cái đó,
    tôi ước,
    tôi ước cô ấy ở đây
    cho chúng.
    Tại sao?
    Bởi vì,
    tốt,
    tôi ước tôi có thể cảm ơn cô ấy
    vì đã là một người cha phi thường.
    Tôi không bao giờ làm được.
    Tôi đã nói với bạn, tôi đã coi thường cô ấy.
    Tôi không bao giờ biết nó khó khăn như thế nào
    đến khi tôi có con riêng của mình,
    nhưng tôi,
    tôi nghĩ cô ấy sẽ rất tự hào
    về,
    về,
    về,
    những đứa trẻ của chúng tôi,
    bạn biết đấy,
    đứa trẻ chín tuổi Dutch,
    đứa trẻ mười lăm tuổi Montana.
    Tôi nghĩ cô ấy sẽ tự hào về tôi
    trong khía cạnh đó.
    Tôi nghĩ cô ấy muốn tôi hạnh phúc.
    Cô ấy muốn tôi là một người chồng tốt.
    Tôi có một người vợ tuyệt vời, siêu sao,
    Jennifer.
    Tôi có bốn
    đứa trẻ đáng kinh ngạc,
    người ạ,
    chỉ mang đến cho tôi niềm vui.
    Tôi vật lộn để trở thành một người cha tốt hơn,
    một người chồng,
    chính trị,
    bạn biết đấy,
    nhưng đó là tất cả những gì cô ấy mong muốn cho tôi.
    Khi bạn ở trong ánh đèn công cộng,
    như tôi đoán là tôi cũng như vậy bây giờ
    bởi vì mọi người theo dõi tôi rất nhiều.
    Thời gian vui vẻ, người ạ.
    Luôn có sự cân bằng
    giữa những gì mọi người thấy,
    đó là một điều rất hai chiều,
    đó là những gì mọi người thấy về tôi,
    và sau đó là,
    cuộc sống gia đình không hoàn hảo,
    lộn xộn, mà tôi phải đối mặt mỗi ngày.
    Như,
    ngay cả trên đường đến đây sáng nay,
    tôi như,
    tôi sẽ đến muộn với Gavin Newsom
    bởi vì bạn gái tôi
    đang bị đau bụng kinh
    và tôi như,
    tôi không muốn rời bỏ bạn gái của tôi,
    nhưng tôi cần phải đi.
    Tôi sẽ đến muộn
    và tôi như cố gắng,
    bạn biết đấy,
    và sau đó chúng tôi có những tiếng chuông báo động
    ở trong nhà
    và rồi tất cả đèn chớp
    bởi vì chúng tôi vừa mới chuyển vào,
    như bạn biết đấy,
    và rồi,
    những điều điên rồ.
    Và rồi bạn nhìn vào điện thoại của tôi
    và có những vấn đề công việc
    và rồi có những vấn đề gia đình của tôi
    đã xảy ra
    và rồi tôi đến đây
    và phỏng vấn bạn.
    Tôi xin lỗi.
    Tôi cảm thấy như tôi đã làm cản trở bạn.
    Không, không, không, không.
    Nhưng rõ ràng đó là một điều vinh dự lớn,
    như bạn biết đấy,
    nhưng chỉ là,
    tôi nói vậy bởi vì
    có một điều gì đó phía sau cánh gà
    và điều đó không hoàn hảo
    như vẻ bề ngoài.
    Ôi không, người ạ.
    Bạn đang ám chỉ rằng
    giai đoạn cuộc đời của bạn
    đầy khiếm khuyết.
    Ừ.
    Nói cho tôi về
    những khiếm khuyết con người
    đang diễn ra
    ở phía sau cánh gà
    khi bạn
    đang xuất sắc trong công việc.
    Tôi nghĩ có một tờ
    tạp chí
    The Economist
    đã làm một tiêu đề
    nói rằng,
    “chàng trai trẻ đang vội,
    anh ấy muốn trở thành thống đốc
    một cách nghiêm túc.”
    Và không có dấu hỏi,
    đó không phải là câu hỏi,
    hơn là,
    đó là một cái nhìn,
    nó giống như,
    như anh ấy nghiêm túc,
    anh ấy thực sự nghĩ
    anh ấy có thể trở thành thống đốc.
    Đó là một tiêu đề có phần châm biếm.
    Nhưng tiêu đề
    đã khiến tôi chú ý,
    chàng trai trẻ đang vội.
    Đó chính là tôi.
    Tôi là một doanh nhân,
    chỉ cố gắng làm mọi thứ xảy ra,
    thử những điều mới,
    xem điều gì hiệu quả,
    có nhiều thành công hơn thất bại,
    học hỏi từ những sai lầm,
    tiến lên,
    di chuyển khá nhanh,
    ở độ tuổi còn trẻ.
    Ý tôi là,
    tôi nghĩ,
    tôi là một trong những thị trưởng trẻ nhất
    trong lịch sử San Francisco,
    bạn biết đấy,
    trong những năm 30 của tôi.
    Và, bạn biết đấy,
    sự mất mát của mẹ tôi,
    một mối quan hệ với vợ đầu tiên của tôi,
    nó đã kết thúc một cách cực kỳ tốt đẹp.
    Cô ấy, bạn biết đấy,
    tôi không có điều gì,
    tiêu cực để nói,
    v.v.,
    nhưng nó đã kết thúc.
    Điều đó thật xấu hổ.
    Bạn biết đấy,
    mọi thứ đều công khai.
    Tất cả đều công khai.
    Tôi lớn lên công khai.
    Tôi lớn lên trong ánh sáng
    chói lọi này.
    Làm thế nào mà bạn lại gặp sai lầm?
    Ừ, tôi chỉ,
    tôi chỉ,
    tôi không,
    tôi không nhận thức được tình huống.
    Tôi không trưởng thành về mặt cảm xúc
    theo cách mà,
    tôi nhớ có một người bạn tốt của tôi,
    Mimi Silver,
    người thật sự xuất sắc,
    đã khiến tôi,
    chỉ,
    chỉ có được cuộc sống của tôi.
    Cô ấy là người đã khiến tôi
    sống có trách nhiệm hơn.
    Cô ấy nói,
    Tôi đã nói,
    cô ấy nói,
    bạn là thị trưởng
    ở San Francisco.
    Tôi đã nói,
    vâng,
    tôi biết.
    Cô ấy nói,
    vậy thì hãy bắt đầu hành động như vậy đi.
    Tôi đã nói,
    bạn đang nói về cái gì?
    Tôi đã nói,
    tôi nói,
    khi tôi vào đó,
    tôi không cần phải ở hàng ghế đầu.
    Cô ấy nói,
    bạn cần phải ở đó.
    Tôi đã nói,
    tôi không cần,
    tôi không thích ở hàng ghế đầu.
    Tôi không thích,
    tôi không cần phải đúng.
    Cô ấy nói,
    thị trưởng quái quỷ
    và bạn sẽ ở hàng ghế đầu
    và bạn sẽ có người xem bạn
    ở hàng ghế đầu
    bởi vì đó là điều họ muốn
    từ thị trưởng của họ.
    Và tôi nghĩ,
    tôi nhớ đã nói như thế này.
    Tôi đã nói,
    vâng,
    không,
    tôi không cần điều đó.
    Tôi không cần,
    tôi thích công việc.
    Tôi không,
    đó không phải là một phần của công việc.
    Đó là một cách giao tiếp.
    Đó giống như là một buổi họp báo.
    Tôi muốn,
    tôi không,
    và đó là một,
    cô ấy thực sự có một,
    tôi nhớ rằng,
    tôi nhớ ngồi đó
    với bữa tối với cô ấy
    tại Delancey Street
    khi cô ấy nói điều đó với tôi
    và nó đã đánh trúng tôi
    ở cốt lõi.
    Có,
    đã có một sự thiếu trưởng thành
    rằng tôi chỉ là một doanh nhân
    đã tình cờ trở thành thị trưởng.
    Và tôi,
    điều này thật mỉa mai,
    dựa trên cuộc trò chuyện của chúng tôi,
    cần phải đóng vai trò
    một chút nhiều hơn so với tôi đã làm.
    Và tôi cần phải trưởng thành
    và tôi cần phải chỉnh đốn lại.
    Và tôi, bạn biết đấy,
    và vì vậy,
    tôi đã trải qua một quá trình.
    Có một vài năm như thế,
    một năm mà,
    bạn biết đấy,
    nhiều điều đã xảy ra
    cùng một lúc.
    Và tôi đã có thể
    vượt qua nó,
    được tái bầu.
    Những điều gì đã xảy ra
    cùng một lúc?
    Vâng,
    ý tôi là,
    ly hôn,
    mất mẹ,
    ly hôn,
    xử lý công việc mới,
    xử lý các quyết định nổi bật
    trở thành rất quốc gia.
    Bỗng nhiên,
    tôi,
    bạn biết đấy,
    đang làm nhiều việc hơn sức của mình
    như một quan chức trẻ
    theo những cách mà tôi,
    không nhiều người
    không nghĩ đến.
    Vấn đề chất lượng hôn nhân
    là một trong số đó,
    các vấn đề khác mà tôi đã tham gia.
    Đến điều bạn nói về việc uống rượu
    hơi nhiều một chút.
    Và sau ly hôn,
    làm một vài sai lầm ngớ ngẩn
    mà tôi đã thừa nhận
    và hối tiếc
    và phải làm việc
    thông qua tất cả điều đó,
    ý tôi là,
    những điều này là,
    bạn biết đấy,
    xung quanh thời điểm này,
    bạn biết đấy,
    và,
    bạn biết đấy,
    những gì tôi có thể nói với đứa trẻ này.
    Bạn sẽ nói gì với nó?
    Hãy lấy lại bản thân đi.
    Bạn đang đề cập đến
    mối quan hệ ngoài hôn nhân
    mà bạn đã thừa nhận.
    Vâng,
    tôi không kết hôn,
    nhưng cô ấy thì có.
    Và thật buồn cười,
    tôi có một chút hồi ký
    mà tôi đang xuất bản,
    trớ trêu là có tên
    Một Chàng Trai Trong Cuộc Vội Vã
    vào năm sau.
    Tôi thích tiêu đề này.
    Cũng liên quan.
    Tôi rất,
    bạn biết đấy,
    tôi suy ngẫm về điều đó
    và đào sâu hơn
    một cách tự chỉ trích rất lớn
    và tôi hy vọng bằng một cách rất trung thực.
    Và tôi hy vọng mọi người
    có thể đánh giá điều đó.
    Tôi nghĩ mọi người sẽ
    bởi vì tôi nghĩ
    mỗi con người bình thường
    hiểu rằng
    họ cũng không hoàn hảo
    và đặc biệt khi
    cuộc sống cầm lấy
    và bạn đang trưởng thành
    và bạn đang học hỏi,
    chúng ta đều mắc sai lầm.
    Tôi đã mắc sai lầm
    và tôi hy vọng sẽ mắc nhiều hơn nữa.
    Vâng.
    Nhưng tôi nghĩ điều quan trọng là
    trong việc thừa nhận
    những sai lầm đó
    và công nhận chúng
    là nơi mà chúng ta,
    là nơi chúng ta tìm ra
    ai thực sự là chúng ta.
    Vâng.
    Bạn biết không?
    Và bị xấu hổ.
    Bị xấu hổ.
    Tôi không biết gì về
    bất kỳ điều gì trong số này.
    Nhưng khi bạn nói bị xấu hổ,
    tôi chỉ đơn giản là bị xấu hổ.
    Bố tôi,
    ông đã nói một điều gì đó
    và tôi sẽ nói với bạn,
    điều đó đã theo tôi.
    Ông đã nói với tôi lúc đó
    rằng ông rất thất vọng về tôi.
    Và ông đã nói,
    bạn quay về nhà với người
    đã đưa bạn đến buổi nhảy.
    Chết tiệt.
    Và đó là tác động
    mà tôi đã có lên một trong những người bạn của tôi
    mà tôi, bạn biết đấy,
    bởi vì điều đó rất,
    và tôi không biết,
    đó không phải là một cách,
    nó giống như một điều ngắn nhất,
    thậm chí không phải là một mối quan hệ,
    nó chỉ là,
    chỉ là một số điều ngu ngốc.
    Và tôi chỉ cố gắng,
    bạn biết đấy,
    thực tế rằng chúng tôi là bạn hôm nay
    rất quan trọng với tôi,
    như là một trong những điều quan trọng nhất,
    như để hòa giải.
    Và điều đó đã thực sự rất quan trọng
    như một phần của hành trình.
    Nhưng, bạn biết đấy,
    tôi đã để ông ấy thất vọng.
    Tôi đã làm bố tôi xấu hổ.
    Tôi đã làm bản thân xấu hổ.
    Tôi không phải là chính mình.
    Và tôi đã phải lấy lại bản thân
    và đã làm được.
    Chỉ cần một chút thôi.
    Ý tôi là,
    quay trở lại với Mimi Silbert,
    chỉ là một ngôi sao rock.
    Và cô ấy đã nói với tôi,
    bạn biết đấy,
    tôi nhớ cô ấy đã nói,
    bạn sẽ đến gặp tôi tối nay
    và chúng ta sẽ khắc phục điều này.
    Tôi đã xây dựng các công ty từ con số không
    và hỗ trợ nhiều công ty khác.
    Và có một điểm mù
    mà tôi liên tục nhận thấy
    ở những người sáng lập giai đoạn đầu.
    Họ dành rất ít thời gian
    nghĩ về nhân sự.
    Và không phải vì họ liều lĩnh
    hoặc không quan tâm.
    Mà vì họ bị ám ảnh
    với việc xây dựng các công ty của mình.
    Và tôi không thể trách họ về điều đó.
    Ở giai đoạn đó,
    bạn đang nghĩ về sản phẩm,
    cách thu hút khách hàng mới,
    cách mở rộng đội ngũ của bạn,
    thực sự là cách tồn tại.
    Và vấn đề nhân sự xuống dưới danh sách
    bởi vì nó không cảm thấy cấp bách.
    Nhưng sớm hay muộn,
    nó sẽ.
    Và khi mọi thứ trở nên rối rắm,
    các công cụ như nhà tài trợ hôm nay của chúng ta, JustWorks,
    trở thành một điều cần thiết
    thay vì chỉ là một thứ tốt để có.
    Một cái gì đó xảy ra sai sót
    và bạn thấy mình
    có những cuộc trò chuyện
    mà bạn không thấy trước được.
    Đây là lúc bạn học
    rằng nhân sự thực sự là
    cơ sở hạ tầng của công ty bạn.
    Và nếu không có nó,
    mọi thứ sẽ lung lay.
    Và JustWorks
    ngăn bạn phải học điều này theo cách khó khăn.
    Nó chăm sóc những thứ
    mà nếu không,
    sẽ làm bạn kiệt sức
    và ngốn thời gian của bạn,
    tự động hóa bảng lương,
    các quyền lợi bảo hiểm sức khỏe.
    Và nó cung cấp cho đội ngũ của bạn
    hỗ trợ con người bất cứ lúc nào.
    Nó phát triển cùng với doanh nghiệp nhỏ của bạn
    từ khởi nghiệp đến phát triển,
    ngay cả khi bạn bắt đầu tuyển dụng
    thành viên đội ngũ ở nước ngoài.
    Vì vậy, nếu bạn muốn có sự hỗ trợ nhân sự
    ở bên bạn
    trong những thời kỳ thú vị
    và những thời kỳ khó khăn,
    hãy truy cập JustWorks.com ngay bây giờ.
    Đó là JustWorks.com.
    Ở độ tuổi đó,
    bạn là một người đàn ông rất trẻ.
    Ý tôi là,
    bạn vẫn trông như một người đàn ông trẻ bây giờ.
    Trời phù hộ cho bạn, anh em.
    Nhưng những người đàn ông trẻ đặc biệt,
    có một bộ các vấn đề đặc biệt
    trong thế giới hiện đại.
    Và bạn đã dùng một số từ
    mà tổng hợp vào điều đó.
    Bạn đã sử dụng các từ như mục đích
    và ý nghĩa.
    Và nếu chúng ta nhìn vào một số thống kê về tình hình của những người đàn ông trẻ tuổi ở đất nước này, thì không được tốt lắm. Và ngay cả những cậu bé trẻ tuổi cũng đang gặp khó khăn khắp nơi trên thế giới vì nhiều lý do khác nhau. Khi chúng ta suy nghĩ về bầu không khí chính trị và những gì đã xảy ra trong chu kỳ bầu cử vừa qua, và cách mà những người đàn ông trẻ tuổi ngày càng bỏ phiếu cho một tập hợp ý tưởng nhất định, bạn nghĩ điều gì đang diễn ra với những người đàn ông trẻ tuổi? Và giải pháp hoặc câu trả lời nào sẽ dẫn họ đến một kết quả tốt hơn?
    Bạn biết đấy, tôi thực sự tự hào về vợ mình, người đã thực sự trở thành một nhà lãnh đạo. Cô ấy đã thực hiện khoảng một tá phim tài liệu. Cô ấy đã thực hiện một bộ phim được cộng đồng đón nhận rất tốt mang tên “Misrepresentation” về những huyền thoại và thông tin sai lệch liên quan đến phụ nữ và các cô gái. Cô ấy tiếp tục hai năm sau đó vào năm 2015 với một bộ phim tài liệu có tên “The Mask You Live In” về nam tính. Vào năm 2015, cô ấy đã nêu bật tất cả những thứ, những xu hướng của một thập kỷ trước mà giờ đây trở thành tiêu điểm liên quan đến cuộc khủng hoảng của các cậu bé và đàn ông. Cô ấy đã chỉ ra tỷ lệ tự tử. Cô ấy đã nói về những cái chết vì tuyệt vọng. Cô ấy đã nói về trình độ giáo dục. Cô ấy đã đề cập đến tất cả các vấn đề này là một cuộc khủng hoảng ở trình độ cao hơn. Và nó đã đi trước thời đại của cô ấy ở rất nhiều khía cạnh.
    Cô ấy đã quay lại với tôi nhiều lần về vấn đề này, đặc biệt là liên quan đến hai cậu con trai của chúng tôi và sự trưởng thành của chúng so với hai cô con gái của tôi, cùng mối quan hệ mà chúng tôi có với sự hiểu biết sâu sắc hơn về cách mà đàn ông, các cô gái, phụ nữ và cậu bé khác nhau. Và vì vậy, đây là tình trạng báo động trong đất nước này và trên toàn thế giới ngày càng gia tăng. Nếu điều này xảy ra với bất kỳ nhóm thiểu số nào, đặc biệt là trong đảng của tôi, Đảng Dân chủ, thì chúng tôi sẽ rất quan tâm đến vấn đề này. Thay vào đó, chúng tôi lại c hesitant về nó vì đàn ông có lợi ích theo kiểu phân cấp trong xã hội mà có từ hàng trăm năm trước.
    Ôi, đàn ông thực sự đang gặp khó khăn. Thật sao? Bạn biết đấy, đàn ông vẫn chiếm ưu thế trong tất cả những vị trí quyền lực và ảnh hưởng quan trọng này. Nhưng khi bạn nhìn thấy tất cả những gì đang diễn ra bên dưới, đó là một cuộc khủng hoảng. Và vì thế, Đảng Cộng hòa, đặc biệt là Donald Trump, và tôi nghĩ trong một số khía cạnh, những gì đang xảy ra trong cái gọi là manosphere, và tôi không có ý nghĩa tiêu cực, đã không có sự khai thác, ít nhất thì cũng có sự công nhận và mối quan hệ với điều này đã thu hút nhiều đàn ông trẻ đang tìm kiếm ý nghĩa, mục đích và sứ mệnh.
    Và vì thế, điều này cũng đã bị lợi dụng, đặc biệt bởi một đảng theo cách mà tôi nghĩ cuối cùng không có lợi hoặc tích cực. Đảng của chúng tôi cần phải nhận thức về điều này, và chúng tôi cần phải giải quyết những thực tế này. Richard Reeves đang làm công việc tuyệt vời về vấn đề này. Scott Galloway cũng đang làm công việc đáng kinh ngạc về nó. Nhiều người trong không gian này, bạn biết đấy, Kat đã nói về nó từ một thập kỷ trước. Nhưng Đảng Dân chủ, đảng của tôi, cần phải thừa nhận trong lĩnh vực này.
    Và chỉ để tôi không bị, bạn biết đấy, bị cáo buộc là chỉ dạy mà không thực hành, tôi đã làm việc trong sáu tháng qua về một sắc lệnh hành chính mà chúng tôi sắp công bố trong lĩnh vực này liên quan đến các vấn đề giáo dục. Nó không thể chỉ là những gì bạn không thấy trong nhiều giáo viên mẫu giáo, tiểu học, hầu hết trong số họ là phụ nữ. Nó thực sự liên quan đến việc tuyển thêm đàn ông trở thành giáo viên, tập trung vào việc chăm sóc, và tập trung rộng hơn vào những sự can thiệp rất có chủ ý để bắt đầu giải quyết cuộc khủng hoảng này.
    Tôi nghĩ Đảng Dân chủ đã sa sút trong việc đối phó với điều này. Và từ “sa sút” rõ ràng có ý nghĩa khá nặng nề. Nhưng rất nhiều, tôi nghĩ một số người có thể nói công bằng rằng một phần nào đó đã quay lưng lại hoặc hiểu nhầm về đàn ông, có lẽ là cách tốt hơn để diễn đạt là đã hiểu nhầm hoàn cảnh khó khăn của đàn ông và các cậu bé.
    Và Đảng Cộng hòa, tôi nghĩ, thông điệp họ đưa ra, mặc dù có những sắc thái, bạn biết đấy, về hành vi hoặc kể chuyện không mang tính sản xuất, nhưng ít nhất đã nói trực tiếp đến đàn ông. 100%. Chúng tôi đã không, bạn nghĩ Đảng Dân chủ đã sai ở điểm nào liên quan đến việc thu hút đàn ông trẻ tuổi? Câu chuyện mà Đảng Dân chủ đã trình bày nhưng không nên thì sao? Tôi nghĩ có một sự thiếu hụt sâu sắc về sự đồng cảm, sự quan tâm, bất kỳ lòng từ bi nào đối với những gì đang diễn ra, cũng như thiếu sự công nhận và hiểu biết sâu sắc hơn. Tôi nghĩ đây vẫn là một điều, tôi vẫn có các cuộc trò chuyện với mọi người và mọi người rất không thoải mái trong đảng của tôi khi nói về điều này, đặc biệt là các thành viên trong đảng tôi ở các vị trí lãnh đạo, đặc biệt là phụ nữ mà cảm thấy rằng, ồ, chúng tôi vừa trải qua Me Too, chúng tôi đang gặp khó khăn với bình đẳng giới, chúng tôi vẫn chưa có sự đại diện bình đẳng trong tất cả các vị trí CEO, và rõ ràng chúng tôi đang gặp khó khăn trong các cơ quan lập pháp, chúng tôi vẫn tiếp tục mắc phải cái trần kính mà chúng tôi không thể phá vỡ, và bạn cần thêm bằng chứng gì hơn nữa ngoài Kamala Harris và Hillary Clinton? Chúng tôi thậm chí còn không được trả lương bằng mức mà đàn ông nhận được, và bạn đang nói với tôi về những khó khăn và thách thức độc đáo của đàn ông?
    Và rồi bạn bắt đầu nói rằng, sẽ có tới hai đến một sinh viên tốt nghiệp xuất hiện từ hệ thống UC của chúng tôi ở California trong sáu năm tới. Họ nói, điều đó không đúng, rồi họ thấy các ông bố, phụ nữ, và họ đã nói, ồ, tôi không nhận ra điều đó. Hai đến một số phụ nữ tốt nghiệp so với đàn ông. Vâng, ý tôi là, chúng tôi đang trên con đường đó. Ý tôi là, chúng tôi đang dần đi xuống con đường đó. Tương tự như vậy ở Vương quốc Anh. Bạn thấy tỷ lệ tự tử thực sự ở mức cao. Bạn thấy những cái chết do tuyệt vọng, có nghĩa là số vụ sốc thuốc, thật sự đáng báo động, và bạn thấy tất cả các chỉ số về nỗi bất hạnh, sự cô đơn và sự tách biệt. Bạn thấy, ý tôi là, Scott, anh ấy là người giỏi nhất.
    Ý tôi là,
    nói về
    điều này có nghĩa là gì
    về khía cạnh
    việc không thể
    của các chàng trai
    trở thành đàn ông,
    trở thành người chăm sóc,
    trở thành những chiến binh,
    có,
    bạn biết đấy,
    trở thành những hình mẫu
    ngay cả việc có
    những phẩm chất nam tính
    của việc có thể
    tham gia
    vào một mối quan hệ thực sự
    thay vì
    bị gắn bó với một
    khái niệm mối quan hệ
    trong phim khiêu dâm trực tuyến
    hay điều gì đó.
    Và vì vậy,
    đây là một chiến lược toàn diện
    cần phải
    được áp dụng.
    Và đối với tôi,
    về mặt chính trị,
    như tôi đã nói,
    đây là tình huống khẩn cấp,
    không chỉ về bản chất,
    về đạo đức của nó,
    mà còn về chính trị
    liên quan đến nó
    vì các đảng khác
    đã vũ khí hóa điều này
    và đây là đa văn hóa,
    đa sắc tộc,
    không chỉ,
    không chỉ là sự bất mãn
    của những người đàn ông da trắng
    được thể hiện trong không gian này.
    nếu và khi nào
    bạn trở thành tổng thống
    vào năm 2028
    hoặc một năm khác,
    thái độ
    đối với đàn ông
    sẽ thay đổi như thế nào
    và những cách thực tiễn nào
    mà bạn thực hiện
    để đạt được điều đó,
    bạn biết không?
    Chà,
    tôi không nghĩ bạn nên đợi
    cho khoảnh khắc đó.
    Tôi nghĩ chúng ta phải
    hình thành khoảnh khắc đó.
    Tôi nghĩ chúng ta phải
    chịu trách nhiệm.
    Chúng ta phải có trách nhiệm
    và chúng ta phải có
    một cái nhìn rõ ràng,
    trước hết, bạn phải có
    một cái nhìn sâu sắc hơn
    về lý do mà Đảng Dân chủ
    chỉ có 27%
    trong các cuộc thăm dò
    chỉ vài tháng trước.
    Ý tôi là,
    đó là một đảng độc hại
    về thương hiệu của nó.
    Tại sao?
    Chính xác.
    Chúng ta cần phải hiểu
    điều đó.
    Tôi có thể đưa ra 25 lý thuyết.
    Bạn có thể cho tôi một cái siêu,
    vì tôi không phải là một chính trị gia
    nên tôi không hiểu
    nhiều về những gì được nói trong chính trị,
    nhưng như vậy,
    thật kinh ngạc.
    Vâng.
    Và tại sao điều đó lại xảy ra?
    Vâng.
    Cảm ơn bạn.
    Không,
    nhưng đó là câu hỏi.
    Làm thế nào mà điều đó xảy ra?
    Đó là một trong những lý do
    tôi bắt đầu podcast riêng của mình.
    Đó là một phần của sự khám phá đó.
    Một lần nữa,
    quay trở lại khiêm tốn và ân sủng,
    hai từ tôi sẽ sử dụng
    liên tục.
    Hãy tìm hiểu trước
    khi bạn được hiểu.
    Tôi đã lắng nghe tất cả các ý kiến
    ngay sau kết quả bầu cử.
    Vâng.
    Và mọi người đều là chuyên gia.
    Tôi như,
    thật tuyệt vời.
    Bạn là một chuyên gia.
    Đó là Israel,
    chắc chắn rồi.
    Không, đó là lạm phát,
    chắc chắn rồi.
    Không, đó là lãi suất,
    chắc chắn rồi.
    Không, đó là việc duy trì
    quyền lực,
    chắc chắn rồi.
    Không, đó là chính trị thức tỉnh,
    chắc chắn rồi.
    Nó liên quan đến người chuyển giới,
    chắc chắn rồi.
    Mọi người đều chắc chắn.
    Họ biết chính xác đó là gì.
    Tôi như,
    điều này thật tuyệt vời.
    Mọi người chỉ biết
    những gì đang diễn ra.
    Trong khi đó,
    tôi chỉ viết 20 trang trong
    việc ghi chép
    và nói rằng,
    ồ, đó là về việc mất quản lý.
    Ồ, không,
    đó là về quản lý.
    Không, đó là về,
    nó liên quan đến Joe Rogan.
    Chúng tôi không xuất hiện trên Joe.
    Ồ, chắc chắn rồi.
    Đó là về,
    cô ấy không,
    bạn biết đấy,
    cô ấy không nói điều này,
    hay là cô ấy,
    đó là quan điểm,
    chắc chắn rồi.
    Cô ấy có thể đã tách ra
    từ Biden.
    Không, đó là một,
    và sau đó tôi như,
    chờ một chút.
    Vậy nên,
    điều đó trở thành hành trình riêng của tôi
    trở lại với tinh thần khởi nghiệp,
    cố gắng lặp lại
    và quyết định mời một số người mà tôi
    kịch liệt không đồng ý
    trên podcast mới của mình,
    Charlie Kirk,
    vì bạn biết đấy,
    chắc chắn rồi, anh ấy đã thành công
    trong việc thuyết phục nhiều
    thanh niên đến
    với số lượng kỷ lục
    cho Trump.
    Tôi muốn tìm hiểu về điều đó.
    Quay trở lại khái niệm rằng
    thành công để lại dấu vết.
    Tôi muốn khai thác ý tưởng của anh ấy.
    Bạn đang làm đúng điều gì,
    người bạn?
    Hãy thể hiện sự khiêm tốn
    và ân sủng liên quan đến
    không cố gắng tranh luận
    trong cuộc phỏng vấn.
    Chỉ cần,
    tôi đang muốn tìm hiểu,
    tôi muốn biết
    tại sao bạn lại thành công như vậy.
    Điều đó đã làm phiền rất nhiều người.
    Bạn đã khám phá ra điều gì?
    Anh ấy có một kế hoạch.
    Anh ấy thực hiện một kế hoạch.
    Anh ấy có một chiến lược.
    Anh ấy đã xác định một ngày
    với một mục tiêu gắn liền với nó.
    Anh ấy có một giấc mơ
    với một thời hạn.
    Anh ấy có mặt
    ở những nơi mà mọi người không
    mong đợi anh ấy có mặt.
    Anh ấy gặp gỡ mọi người
    mà không có bất kỳ bộ lọc nào.
    Anh ấy sẵn sàng đối diện với những người
    mà anh không đồng ý
    và cả những người đồng ý với anh.
    Anh ấy sẵn sàng ra ngoài
    trên thực địa.
    Anh ấy đã tổ chức
    một cấu trúc
    và rất cẩn thận
    xây dựng một cảm nhận
    về cộng đồng
    và khái niệm này về cộng đồng.
    Tất cả chúng ta đều muốn được kết nối
    với một cái gì đó lớn hơn
    chính mình.
    Đây cũng là một phần lớn của điều này,
    một phần của phong trào MAGA.
    Và đặc biệt
    với những người cảm thấy mất kết nối,
    bạn sẽ tự nhiên
    muốn tìm lại
    con đường trở về
    đến một cái gì đó lớn hơn
    chính mình
    mà loại móc bạn lại
    và mang đến cho bạn một cảm giác
    mục đích
    và ý nghĩa nữa.
    Và khi mọi người bị lạc,
    họ tìm kiếm
    một ai đó
    có thể đồng điệu với họ
    và ai đó có thể nói
    trực tiếp về cảnh ngộ của họ.
    Và quan sát của tôi
    như một người không phải là người Mỹ,
    khi tôi nghĩ về ai đó
    như Charlie Kirk
    so với Kamala Harris,
    thì đó là cách tiếp cận
    hoàn toàn đối lập.
    Kamala Harris,
    nhiều người nói rằng
    cô ấy đã tránh không lên Rogan.
    Cô ấy muốn anh ấy bay đến gặp cô.
    Cô ấy muốn Rogan
    bay đến gặp cô.
    Cô ấy sẽ cho anh ta
    một khoảng thời gian rất ngắn.
    Nó có thể sẽ
    được làm sạch
    trong mọi khía cạnh.
    Và sau đó Charlie Kirk
    ngồi trên các khuôn viên
    trên khắp nước Mỹ
    và có sinh viên đến
    hỏi anh ấy bất kỳ câu hỏi nào.
    Và phản ứng của anh ấy là,
    anh ấy cho bạn thấy phản ứng của mình
    để ghi nhận
    và anh ấy không quan tâm
    đến việc làm sạch
    hay là chính trị đúng đắn.
    Đúng vậy.
    Và anh ấy đăng lên YouTube
    trong hàng giờ đồng hồ
    và hàng giờ đồng hồ.
    Và tôi nghĩ trong một thế giới hộp kính
    nơi mà bây giờ chúng ta có thể nhìn vào bên trong
    nhờ công nghệ,
    cách tiếp cận hộp đen
    nơi đội ngũ PR của bạn
    cố gắng vẽ ra một hình ảnh
    bên ngoài đã kết thúc.
    Và chúng ta đã thấy điều đó
    trong chu kỳ bầu cử.
    Và bạn đang làm,
    bạn đang dẫn đầu,
    tôi phải ghi nhận bạn,
    bạn đang dẫn đầu làn sóng đó
    vì tôi không thể nghĩ
    ra một nhân vật chính trị quan trọng nào
    trên toàn cầu đã bắt đầu
    một podcast nơi bạn thực sự
    mời bên đối diện tham gia.
    Vì vậy, bạn đang làm,
    tôi nghĩ bạn đang thực hiện
    cách tiếp cận hộp kính.
    Tôi rất thích cách
    bạn mô tả điều đó
    và mọi thứ bạn đã nói
    đã vang lên trong tôi.
    Đã có Steve Bannon trên đó.
    Vâng.
    điều này chỉ là,
    bạn biết đấy,
    cũng rất thú vị.
    Nhìn xem, những người này tồn tại
    và vẫn tiếp tục.
    Bạn có thể phủ nhận điều đó.
    Bữa tiệc của tôi có thể chối bỏ điều đó với rủi ro của chính mình. Quay trở lại với điểm của bạn về những gì đã xảy ra với bữa tiệc của tôi. Vì vậy, tôi đang cố gắng hiểu điều đó, cố gắng phân tích điều đó. Nhưng bạn biết đấy, điều đó thật thú vị. Tôi nghĩ, bạn biết đấy, Kamala là một người bạn cũ của tôi. Tôi không muốn đi sâu vào chuyện Kamala. Và tôi nói là bạn cũ thì người ta lắc đầu trong chính trị. Người ta nói, bạn cũ thì có nghĩa là họ là kẻ thù không đội trời chung. Nhưng không phải vậy. Chúng tôi đã quen nhau từ trước khi cả hai chúng tôi tham gia chính trị. Chúng tôi đều có điều đó chung. Willie Brown, cựu thị trưởng, có điểm tương đồng trong mối quan hệ mà cả hai chúng tôi đã có với ông ấy. Và do mối quan hệ mà chúng tôi có với ông, chúng tôi đã có cơ hội hiểu biết về nhau như một nhóm. Và tôi nghĩ rất nhiều về những gì chúng tôi vừa trải qua. Tôi ước, tôi rất muốn thấy Kamala trên chương trình của bạn. Tôi rất muốn thấy hình ảnh của mẹ và cha cô ấy. Và tôi cũng biết cô ấy, có thể là tốt hơn hầu hết mọi người. Vâng. Nhưng tôi rất muốn thấy khía cạnh đó của cô ấy. Tôi thực sự muốn như vậy.
    Vì vậy, khái niệm bạn đã nói, hộp kính? Hộp kính so với hộp đen. Hộp đen. Này, tôi ở đây vì một lý do. Vâng. Tôi chỉ, bạn biết đấy, giống như tôi không còn lý do nào nữa. Nhìn này, bạn là chính bạn. Hãy để mọi thứ diễn ra. Và tôi nghĩ mọi người, tôi nghĩ chúng ta tuyên bố rằng chúng ta mong mỏi tính xác thực. Tôi vẫn chủ yếu tin vào điều đó. Đôi khi tôi tự hỏi điều đó vì mọi người muốn bạn là chính bạn một cách chân thật, nhưng họ lại nói, ồ, đừng nói tục nhiều quá hay hãy là chính bạn, nhưng đừng quá xúc động hoặc hãy là chính bạn, nhưng có một điều kiện. Nhưng tôi nghĩ, vào cuối ngày, tôi nghĩ chúng ta đã vượt qua điều đó. Tôi nghĩ chúng ta đang ở phía bên kia. Mọi người chỉ muốn nhiều hơn từ bạn, bất kỳ ai bạn là. Bất kể điều đó là gì. Bởi vì ngay cả điều điên rồ mà tôi quan sát về Trump, chính là những điều không hoàn hảo mà ông nói, từng khiến một số người phản cảm và có những phản ứng tiêu cực. Thực tế là ông ấy sẵn lòng nói ra những điều đó tạo ra trong tâm trí tôi một ấn tượng rằng tôi biết ông ấy là ai. Vâng. Và bạn không cần phải thích một ai đó, nhưng nếu bạn tin rằng bạn biết họ là ai, thì bạn cảm thấy, tôi nghĩ, an toàn hơn trong việc dự đoán họ sẽ làm gì.
    Bây giờ, nếu tôi không thấy Kamala ngồi trên Joe Rogan hoặc ai đó như vậy, để tìm hiểu về cô ấy mà không bị kiểm duyệt, bạn biết đấy, nhóm của bạn không nói với tôi điều này. Nhóm của bạn không đưa cho tôi bất kỳ tiêu chí nào. Họ không nói, bạn không thể hỏi về điều này. Đừng nói về điều này. Không có tiêu chí nào cả. Ít nhất mọi người sẽ biết bạn là ai. Vâng. Và tôi nghĩ hầu hết mọi người không biết. Họ thấy tôi như một người đàn ông lịch lãm, bạn biết đấy, giống như, họ nghĩ tôi lớn lên với một quỹ tín thác. Mọi thứ đều được trao cho họ. Mọi người không biết về nền tảng doanh nhân của tôi. Tôi không nghĩ họ, họ, họ, họ tin vào những gì họ có thể đã thấy trên Fox News ở đây hoặc, bạn biết đấy, ở One American News và sự lợi dụng điều đó. Và vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, tôi chỉ, điều đó thật quan trọng. Tôi nghĩ đối với bữa tiệc của chúng tôi, nói chung, tôi nghĩ cho cả hai bên bây giờ, chỉ cần, bạn chỉ cần phải ra khỏi cái kén đó. Tôi cho Trump, theo quan điểm của bạn, ghi nhận điều đó trong mọi cách, hình dạng, hình thức, chỉ trích ông về nhiều điều. Bạn không thể chỉ trích ông về sự tiếp cận, ít nhất là về việc dường như là chân thật trong cách tiếp cận của ông, sự sẵn lòng đối mặt và tham gia. Và tôi, tôi nghĩ điều đó rất mới mẻ.
    Bạn nghĩ nước Mỹ đang như thế nào? Tôi nghĩ chúng tôi đang gặp khó khăn. Danh tính của chúng tôi, tôi nghĩ chúng tôi, bạn biết đấy, Trump đã khiến chúng tôi cảm thấy tự do để đẩy lui. Đó không phải là mặt tốt nhất của chúng tôi. Bạn biết đấy, ngôn ngữ của John Meacham, linh hồn của nước Mỹ đang gặp khó khăn. Và tôi thực sự lo lắng về các thể chế của chúng ta. Tôi lo lắng về nền dân chủ của chúng ta. Tôi lo lắng về việc hàng xóm quay lưng lại với nhau, mọi người quên đi những chân lý phổ quát mà tất cả chúng ta đều muốn được yêu thương. Tất cả chúng ta đều cần được yêu thương. Tôi đã nói về việc tất cả mọi người cần được kết nối. Chúng ta cũng cần được tôn trọng. Và tôi nghĩ mọi người đang nói hàng không với nhau, không lắng nghe nhau. Một lần nữa, đó là lý do tại sao tôi muốn tạo điều kiện cho những người mà tôi không đồng ý với họ, một người như Newt Gingrich, người đã dẫn đầu nỗ lực thu hồi chức vụ của tôi. Bạn biết đấy, tôi chỉ đang cố gắng tìm kiếm một sự cân bằng trong việc đó, bởi vì bạn biết đấy, có những người tốt mà quyết liệt không đồng ý với chúng tôi. Tôi không biết điều đó có mang lại lợi ích cho bất kỳ ai trong chúng tôi khi xúc phạm hay belittle mọi người. Đó là điều tôi không thích ở Trump. Ông ấy tấn công các cộng đồng dễ bị tổn thương. Mẹ tôi, nguồn cảm hứng ban đầu và sâu sắc thực sự của bà đối với tôi trong một trong hai hoặc ba công việc mà bà đã làm không chỉ làm phục vụ bàn và làm kế toán, mà bà còn làm việc cho chương trình hỗ trợ nhận con nuôi cho trẻ em đặc biệt với gia đình Debalt có những đứa trẻ gặp khó khăn về trí tuệ và thể chất. Và tôi nhớ đã dành thời gian với những đứa trẻ này và tôi ghét những kẻ bắt nạt. Ý tôi là, xin lỗi vì sử dụng từ ghét. Tôi biết tôi chỉ, tôi không thích, tôi ghét những kẻ bắt nạt. Tôi không thích việc mọi người làm nhục người khác. Tôi không thích việc mọi người đùn đẩy trách nhiệm cho các cộng đồng dễ bị tổn thương. Lý do của tôi là đứng lên cho lý tưởng và chống lại bất công. Điều đó định nghĩa chín trong mười điều đối với tôi, cá nhân, nghề nghiệp, đứng lên cho lý tưởng, chống lại bất công. Và đối với tôi, thật bất công khi thấy mọi người bị làm nhục, bị coi thường và thấy các cộng đồng dễ bị tổn thương bị lợi dụng như những quân cờ để nói về, bạn biết đấy, cá sấu, bất kỳ điều gì ở Florida và nói về người nhập cư và coi thường họ theo những cách như vậy. Và họ phải zig và zag nếu họ muốn tránh bị cá sấu cắn chết hay gì đó hoặc chế nhạo những người khuyết tật. Đó là nơi tôi, đó là nơi tôi đứng vững. Và ngay bây giờ, nỗi sợ lớn nhất của tôi, bạn đã hỏi về nơi đất nước chúng ta đang ở. Tôi cảm thấy như Trump đã mở rộng cửa sổ Overton theo cách mà tôi rất lo ngại về khả năng của chúng ta quay trở lại tìm kiếm nhân tính tốt đẹp hơn của mình. Ai quan tâm đến Trump? Bản thân ông ấy, hết.
    Nó không phức tạp.
    Ông ta không,
    Ông ta không quan tâm nếu ông là kẻ xấu hay anh hùng,
    chỉ cần ông là ngôi sao.
    Đó là,
    Ý tôi là,
    Đó là,
    và đó chỉ là bất kỳ ai đã dành thời gian với họ.
    Tôi dành thời gian với nhiều người hoặc thậm chí nhiều hơn bất kỳ đảng viên Dân chủ nào,
    chắc chắn là bất kỳ thống đốc Dân chủ nào trong cả nước,
    điểm kết thúc,
    dứt khoát.
    Tôi đã làm điều đó trong thời gian COVID.
    Thời kỳ đầu của ông ấy và chắc chắn là ngay cả trong nhiệm kỳ thứ hai.
    Và điều gì làm bạn ngạc nhiên?
    Không có gì.
    Điều làm tôi ngạc nhiên bây giờ là ông ấy là một người rất khác so với thời kỳ đầu.
    Ông ấy,
    không còn giới hạn nào nữa.
    Nó,
    có một sự vĩ cuồng ở đó.
    Sự vĩ cuồng.
    Ông ấy không cảm thấy có giới hạn bây giờ.
    Và bạn cảm thấy điều đó theo mọi cách.
    Ông ấy có thể nói và làm bất cứ điều gì ông ấy muốn.
    Và không có sự giám sát nào.
    Không có sự đồng ý tư vấn.
    Không có chi nhánh chính phủ đồng đẳng nào.
    Và Chủ tịch Hạ viện của chúng ta hoàn toàn từ bỏ điều đó.
    Câu hỏi là,
    các tòa án có đứng vững không hay chúng ta là người dân?
    Và tôi sẽ nói với bạn rằng chúng ta đang kỷ niệm 250 năm ngày các tổ phụ sáng lập,
    những điều tốt nhất của Đế chế La Mã,
    dân chủ Hy Lạp.
    Và,
    và bạn biết đấy,
    khái niệm về,
    hệ thống kiểm soát và đối trọng,
    chủ quyền dân chúng.
    Và tôi nghĩ rằng,
    bây giờ nó trên bờ vực sống sót.
    Và tôi không nói điều đó một cách nhẹ nhàng.
    Tôi nói điều đó rất chín chắn.
    Và tôi nói điều đó như một người đã theo dõi tổng thống Hoa Kỳ,
    không điều động quân đội trong nhiệm kỳ đầu của ông,
    hay trong sáu tháng đầu tiên ở bất kỳ nơi nào trên thế giới,
    ngoại trừ một thành phố Mỹ nơi có 5.000 quân đội trên đường phố Los Angeles,
    một cuộc chiến bên trong.
    Vì vậy, tôi nói điều này rất nghiêm túc và ý thức về khoảnh khắc mà chúng ta đang ở trong lịch sử Mỹ.
    Bạn có nghĩ rằng ông ấy muốn bạn thất bại không?
    Tôi nghĩ rằng ông ấy muốn khiến tôi ngã xuống và đồng thời.
    Tôi nghĩ rằng ông ấy thích những cuộc đấu khẩu với tôi.
    Tôi nghĩ rằng ông ấy,
    Tôi nghĩ rằng ông ấy phát triển từ điều đó.
    Tôi biết rằng ông ấy có.
    Bởi vì ông ấy gọi bạn là Gavin Newscum.
    Đúng.
    Nhưng sau đó lại gặp bạn trong riêng tư.
    Đúng.
    Và những cuộc họp đó như thế nào?
    Cực kỳ lịch sự.
    Cực kỳ,
    nó khiến mọi người phát điên khi tôi nói điều này,
    nhưng tôi sẽ nói dối nếu tôi không nói.
    Mỗi lần tôi có một cuộc trò chuyện,
    bao gồm cả đêm trước khi ông ấy nói cách khác,
    quốc gia hóa Lực lượng Vệ binh Quốc gia.
    Chúng tôi đã có một cuộc trò chuyện cực kỳ tốt.
    Chúng tôi đã trao đổi qua lại.
    Ông ấy nói,
    sử dụng điện thoại di động này.
    Tiếp tục,
    tiếp tục gọi trực tiếp cho tôi.
    Bạn cần bất cứ điều gì?
    Gọi cho tôi.
    Bạn cần gì?
    Gọi cho tôi.
    Điều này là một tuyên bố cuối cùng tuyệt vời.
    Khi tôi kết thúc cuộc gọi,
    để rồi đọc tám giờ sau đó,
    rằng tại Newscum,
    tôi đã đọc cho ông ấy một bài diễn thuyết giận dữ,
    điều mà ông ấy không bao giờ làm.
    Hoàn toàn bịa ra,
    100% bịa ra.
    Và sau đó quốc gia hóa Lực lượng Vệ binh.
    Đó là một,
    đó là một trò chơi.
    Đó là một màn trình diễn.
    Đó là một trò chơi nguy hiểm.
    Và nó đang trở nên mệt mỏi và,
    và nguy hiểm hơn.
    Có phải đây chỉ là cách mà chính trị diễn ra ở Mỹ không?
    Không nên.
    Không,
    nó không nên như vậy.
    Bạn biết đấy,
    trước đây tôi đã có chuyện không vui với George W. Bush,
    George H. W. Bush.
    Chúng tôi,
    chúng tôi đã có những thứ không hài lòng ở phía bên kia.
    Đảng Cộng hòa,
    chắc chắn là với Clinton hoặc Obama,
    hoặc thậm chí là Biden.
    Nhớ lại những ngày đó thật lâu.
    Đại học.
    Tôi đã vào văn phòng cũ của Ronald Reagan,
    Thống đốc Ronald Reagan.
    Đó là văn phòng cũ của tôi.
    Ông ấy là thống đốc California.
    Ý tôi là,
    bạn biết đấy,
    bài phát biểu cuối cùng của ông ấy trong Văn phòng Bầu dục,
    bài phát biểu cuối cùng của ông ấy là về năng lượng sống của người Mỹ mới.
    Ngọn đuốc của Nữ Thần Tự Do.
    Những thiên thần tốt đẹp hơn của chúng ta.
    Ý tôi là,
    điều gì đã xảy ra với đảng Cộng hòa đó?
    Và điều này thì khác biệt.
    Điều này là bóng tối.
    Thật sự?
    Bóng tối.
    Bởi vì tôi nghe điều này mỗi chu kỳ bầu cử.
    Không, điều này là,
    điều này là,
    chúng tôi mới chỉ ở tháng thứ sáu.
    Sự phá hoại mà ông ấy đã gây ra cho nền dân chủ và các thể chế này.
    Ý tôi là,
    loại bỏ sự giám sát.
    Tôi không chỉ nói về một nhánh chính phủ đồng đẳng.
    Điều đó có nghĩa là gì đối với người trung bình không,
    có nghĩa là không có,
    ông ấy đã loại bỏ khả năng kiểm toán của thanh tra viên.
    Ông ấy đang nhắm đến những đối thủ chính trị,
    loại bỏ họ khỏi các vị trí quyền lực và ảnh hưởng quan trọng và thay thế bằng những người đệ tử,
    đặt những người chỉ làm theo mệnh lệnh của ông ấy.
    Ông ấy đang đẩy ranh giới về nguyên tắc pháp luật.
    Ông ấy đang đe dọa triệu hồi,
    không chỉ những người ông ấy không đồng ý.
    Ông ấy muốn tôi bị bắt.
    Nhớ rằng tổng thống Hoa Kỳ đã nói,
    Newsom nên bị bắt.
    Họ đã hỏi,
    trên cơ sở nào?
    Ông ấy đã được bầu.
    Ông ấy đã nói rằng ông không thích thực tế là kẻ thù chính trị của ông ấy đã được bầu.
    Nó có nghĩa là ông ấy không,
    không nói điều đó một cách nhẹ nhàng.
    Và bạn biết đấy,
    một khi tâm trí đã được mở rộng,
    nó sẽ không bao giờ trở về trạng thái ban đầu.
    Vì vậy, mỗi lần ông ấy làm điều này,
    ông ấy đang thử nghiệm những ranh giới này.
    Và đây là điều khiến tôi lo lắng hơn.
    Tôi sẽ cho bạn một bằng chứng.
    Chúa là nhân chứng của tôi.
    Chúng tôi đang ngồi đây.
    Khi chúng tôi thực hiện điều này hôm nay trong podcast này,
    tôi vừa,
    tôi vừa đọc sáng nay rằng Donald Trump đã gọi điện cho cơ quan lập pháp Texas.
    Và họ đang trải qua một việc phân chia khu vực để cơ bản có thêm năm ghế cho cuộc bầu cử giữa kỳ vì họ có khả năng thua cuộc bầu cử giữa kỳ.
    Và Trump như muốn mất quyền lực trừ khi họ có thể thay đổi các khu vực và gian lận trò chơi.
    Vì vậy, ông ấy giữ quyền lực.
    Bạn có nghĩ rằng ông ấy sẽ cố gắng giữ quyền lực không?
    Khi những người gần gũi với Donald Trump,
    khi những người gần gũi với Donald Trump gửi cho thống đốc California một chiếc mũ có ghi Trump 2028.
    Họ không đùa đâu.
    Họ đã gửi cho bạn một chiếc mũ ghi Trump 2028.
    2028.
    Họ không đùa đâu.
    Tôi đã ngồi trong văn phòng Oval trong 90 phút với Donald Trump.
    Thống đốc Dân chủ đầu tiên làm điều đó.
    Và ông ấy nhìn quanh và nói,
    Này, có ai đứng sau bạn không?
    Tôi nói,
    Tôi nhìn quanh những bức tranh. Tôi như FDR.
    Và tôi thực sự quay lại. Tôi như,
    Ôi, thật sao?
    Ông ấy nói,
    Vâng.
    Bởi vì bạn nghĩ sao?
    Ba nhiệm kỳ, bốn nhiệm kỳ.
    Tôi nói, ôi, thôi nào.
    Sau đó ông ấy chỉ bắt đầu cười vì ông ấy vui vẻ. Ông ấy đang có niềm vui.
    Nhưng một lần nữa, ông ấy đang ném ra những điều này.
    Ông ấy có, ông ấy đang lặp lại.
    Bạn có nghĩ rằng anh ấy sẽ ở lại làm tổng thống một nhiệm kỳ thứ ba, thứ tư? Ý tôi là, anh ấy, tôi nghĩ vẫn là người đã cố gắng phá hoại đất nước này, cố gắng thắp lên ngọn lửa cho nền dân chủ của chúng ta. Anh ấy đã nói đó là, đó là một ngày của tình yêu, ngày 6 tháng 1, đến mức mà anh ấy đã thực sự, như bạn biết đấy, tha tội cho tất cả những người tham gia vào cuộc hỗn loạn đó. Ý tôi là, điều đó đã xảy ra. Đó là lý do để đặt câu hỏi liệu tôi có ph exuà nhấn mạnh điều gì hay không. Và đó là tuần đầu tiên trong nhiệm kỳ. Đây là, đây là, ý tôi là, điều này thật sốc và đáng sợ. Chúng ta có những người đeo mặt nạ đi đến các tiệm rửa xe mà không bị nhận diện và những người đang biến mất. Trên đường phố Mỹ hôm nay, hàng ngàn người đang biến mất chỉ vì diện mạo của họ, màu da của họ. Trên đường phố Mỹ hiện nay, điều đó đang diễn ra. Điều đó không bình thường. Và mỗi ngày, anh ấy có thể biến đổi và làm chúng ta phân tâm để đi đến nơi khác. Tôi có một thông báo lớn, một thông báo khổng lồ về Putin. Tôi sẽ thực hiện các biện pháp trừng phạt lớn trong 50 ngày tới. Thật sao? Ý tôi là, khả năng phân tâm này, thật nghiêm trọng. Những điều ẩn sau là nghiêm trọng. Và tôi không nghĩ tôi đang ph exuà nhấn mạnh điều đó. Và tôi rất, rất thận trọng khi nói đến loại ngôn ngữ này, bởi vì bạn đúng. Khi bạn có xu hướng nói, bạn biết đấy, bạn biết đấy, hãy bắt đầu kêu cứu ở đây. Tôi không nghĩ rằng chúng ta đang ph exuà nhấn mạnh mức độ nghiêm trọng mà chúng ta phải phản kháng. Mức độ nghiêm trọng của mục đích mà khoảnh khắc này cần phải được đáp ứng. Thật vậy. Thật mà? Đây không chỉ là một, bạn biết đấy, tổng thống đến, họ thực hiện một loạt các thay đổi, một loạt các sắc lệnh hành pháp, và rồi họ rời đi sau ba năm rưỡi. Anh ấy đã cố gắng ở lại văn phòng. Anh ấy đã gọi cho người đứng đầu cuộc bầu cử ở Georgia và nói, tôi chỉ cần một vài ngàn phiếu bầu. Anh ấy không chỉ đi vòng vòng. Anh ấy không đùa về điều đó. Anh ấy hoàn toàn nghiêm túc về điều đó. Và nếu họ tìm thấy điều đó, anh ấy đã gian lận cuộc bầu cử của chính mình. Bạn nghiêm túc sao? Bạn cần thêm bằng chứng gì nữa? Anh ấy thực sự, họ rất lo lắng về việc chiếm lấy hạ viện. Hiện tại, các đảng Dân chủ đang trên đường làm điều đó. Họ phải điều chỉnh lại cuộc chơi. Và bạn nghĩ nếu họ không lấy lại được Hạ viện, họ sẽ không thực hiện một hình thức nào đó về việc đàn áp cử tri, mà chưa từng thấy ở đất nước này, đe dọa quân sự hóa. Bạn nghĩ thử nghiệm này với 5.000 quân đội ngồi hàng tuần, hàng tuần làm không gì cả, mà họ ngồi trong kho vũ khí. Họ không làm gì cả. Họ ở đó chỉ để phô trương, nhưng anh ấy đang đẩy giới hạn về những gì họ có thể làm, thử nghiệm tòa án và hiến pháp. Đó là vì một mục đích lớn hơn. Và tôi không cố gắng để trở thành, bạn biết đấy, tôi không cố gắng để trở thành, nó có thể chưa phải là một mục đích có chủ ý, nhưng họ sẽ tạo ra một cơ hội để sử dụng những bài học đã học ở đây hôm nay để mở rộng tầm ảnh hưởng và sức mạnh của họ vào ngày mai. Và tôi rất, rất lo lắng về nền dân chủ của chúng ta trong ba năm rưỡi tới. Và tôi lo lắng về cuộc bầu cử đó nếu họ giữ được quyền lực của mình trong Hạ viện. Tôi thực sự lo lắng, hoàn toàn nghiêm túc. Về khả năng xảy ra, bạn nghĩ có khả năng Trump sẽ ở lại, cố gắng ở lại văn phòng vào năm 2028 không? Về khả năng xảy ra, không. Không, được rồi. Nhưng tôi có thể thấy một kịch bản, nhưng không phải về khả năng xảy ra. Và đó là dựa trên một điều, thời gian sống. Ồ, được rồi. Nếu anh ấy 69 tuổi, chứ không phải 79. Nhìn xem, đây là một trò lừa đảo vĩ đại. Anh ấy đã làm những điều mà anh ấy chưa từng làm trong nhiệm kỳ đầu tiên. Anh ấy đã chơi ở những vùng biên. Anh ấy đã có thể tận dụng thương hiệu và các công ty của mình để kiếm một vài đồng ở đây và ở đó, nhưng không phải là số tiền mà anh ấy đang kiếm bây giờ. Ý tôi là, tiền điện tử, mọi thứ mà anh ấy đang làm. Ý tôi là, bây giờ mấy đứa trẻ đang bán điện thoại di động, toàn bộ vấn đề, kiếm tiền từ mọi thứ, tung ra những thương hiệu và kế hoạch mới. Ý tôi là, cuối cùng anh ấy đã làm điều mà anh ấy không làm trong nhiệm kỳ đầu tiên, bây giờ khi anh ấy là tổng thống Hoa Kỳ, nhưng giờ anh ấy sẽ kiếm được một khoản tiền lớn. Vì vậy, khi anh ấy không còn là tổng thống, anh ấy sẽ có một kế hoạch 400 triệu đô la với một tỷ đô la nâng cấp. Nó sẽ được quyên góp cho quỹ mà anh ấy có thể sử dụng suốt phần đời còn lại của mình. Cảm ơn các quý vị Qatar. Anh ấy sẽ có hàng tỷ, hàng tỷ đô la. Anh ấy sẽ kiếm được phần lớn tài sản của mình chỉ trong vài năm làm tổng thống Hoa Kỳ. Anh ấy sẽ tự sắp đặt trong lĩnh vực đó. Anh ấy sẽ có hàng trăm triệu đô la tiền quyên góp chiến dịch thặng dư, mà anh ấy có thể sử dụng cho bất kỳ lối sống xa hoa nào mà anh ấy cần. Và tôi tưởng tượng điều đó có thể làm anh ấy hài lòng miễn là anh ấy đưa được người của mình vào thay thế để họ có thể tiếp tục trò lừa đảo đó trong tương lai. Nhân dân Mỹ đã bầu cho anh ấy. Họ đã nói, đó là người của chúng tôi. Đó là lý do tại sao đảng của tôi cần phải thừa nhận điều đó. Và đây là vấn đề sống còn. Chúng ta cần làm tốt hơn và chúng ta cần phải, tôi, điều đó là đúng. Bạn có hy vọng rằng đảng Dân chủ sẽ thức tỉnh kịp thời để đưa ra một chiến dịch nghiêm túc có thể cạnh tranh với loại narritive chiếm ưu thế đó không? Tôi nghĩ rằng nó bắt đầu từ hôm qua. Không phải về người đàn ông hay người phụ nữ nào đó trên con ngựa trắng đến để cứu rỗi. Không phải về năm 2028. Nó về các cuộc bầu cử giữa nhiệm kỳ, mà chúng ta vừa mới nói đến. Nó cũng về những gì xảy ra với tôi bây giờ trong các cuộc bầu cử giữa nhiệm kỳ. Nó về nguyên tắc của pháp luật. Nó về các tòa án. Nó về các thống đốc. Nó về các tiểu bang. Nó về các thị trưởng. Nó về chúng ta, những người dân, công dân. Ý tôi là, hãy nhìn xem, tôi đã được truyền cảm hứng trong Ngày Không Vương. Ý tôi là, các bạn biết một chút về Các Vị Vua. Ý tôi là, Ngày Không Vương, 5 triệu người đã xuất hiện vào ngày sinh nhật của Trump. Điều đó đã mang lại cho tôi hy vọng. Đó là một dạng biểu tình chống lại sự độc tài. Chống lại, chống lại, vâng, đó là, nhìn xem, bạn biết đấy, đó là Công lý Bray và tôi đã nói, trong một nền dân chủ, văn phòng quan trọng nhất không phải là văn phòng tổng thống, thống đốc, thị trưởng, mà là văn phòng công dân. Bạn là một doanh nhân.
    Xin chào, bạn nghĩ đảng của bạn đã làm tốt như thế nào trong việc thu hút các doanh nhân?
    Thật tệ.
    Bạn, bạn đứng đầu San Francisco, mà trên toàn cầu chúng ta nghĩ đến như là điểm trung tâm của đổi mới và công nghệ.
    Thật tệ.
    Nhưng tôi, tôi nghĩ rằng cảm nhận là đảng Dân chủ không thích các doanh nhân và đảng Cộng hòa, đó là quê hương của kinh doanh tự do.
    Thực tế, tất cả bạn bè của tôi là doanh nhân, nếu, nếu họ trung thực trong riêng tư, họ sẽ nói rằng họ có xu hướng nghiêng về đảng Cộng hòa liên quan đến kinh doanh tự do.
    Và thật kỳ diệu.
    Nhưng bạn biết không, thật thú vị kể từ năm 1989, kết thúc Chiến tranh Lạnh ở Mỹ, đã có 52 triệu việc làm được tạo ra.
    Đã có ba nhiệm kỳ chính phủ Cộng hòa, ba nhiệm kỳ chính phủ Dân chủ.
    Vì vậy, thật công bằng để nói, chúng ta đã làm như thế nào với các chính quyền Cộng hòa, các chính quyền Dân chủ kể từ năm 1989 và rồi Chiến tranh Lạnh, vào cuối năm ngoái, 52 triệu việc làm.
    Và bạn sẽ nói, ồ, có thể là 50, 50, có thể các đảng Cộng hòa dựa trên những người bạn doanh nhân của bạn, có thể các đảng Cộng hòa đã tạo ra 60% trong số những việc làm đó.
    Thực tế, 50 trong số 52 triệu việc làm được tạo ra dưới các chính quyền Dân chủ, trong khi 1,9 triệu việc làm được tạo ra trong các chính quyền Cộng hòa.
    Bạn nhìn vào ba Tổng thống Cộng hòa gần nhất, họ có một điểm chung, đó là suy thoái kinh tế.
    Trong chính quyền gần đây nhất dưới Joe Biden đã tạo ra 16,6 triệu việc làm.
    Và tôi biết rằng nhiều trong số đó là việc làm do COVID, nhưng ông ấy đã vượt qua điều đó sau 18 tháng, ông ấy đã tạo ra gấp tám lần số việc làm so với tổng số ba chính quyền Cộng hòa trước đó.
    Nhưng nền kinh tế này tạo ra việc làm tốt hơn, phát triển mạnh mẽ hơn dưới các chính quyền Dân chủ, nhưng cảm nhận là chính xác như bạn đã nói.
    Vâng.
    Vì vậy, bạn, bạn đã cho tôi lý lẽ. Tôi biết, nhưng não bộ không được định hướng theo logic.
    Mà là câu chuyện. Nền kinh tế ở đất nước này ở đâu? Tại sao chúng ta là nền kinh tế lớn thứ tư trên thế giới?
    Chúng ta có bốn trong số bảy công ty có giá trị vốn hóa thị trường lớn nhất thế giới.
    NVIDIA vừa mới có giá trị vốn hóa thị trường lên tới 4 nghìn tỷ USD.
    Chúng ta chiếm ưu thế 32 trong số 50 công ty AI hàng đầu ngay tại California.
    Chúng ta thống trị mọi ngành công nghiệp chủ chốt.
    Chúng ta là bang có ngành sản xuất lớn nhất.
    Chúng ta chiếm ưu thế trong ngành công nghiệp tên miền.
    California chiếm ưu thế.
    Vậy tại sao các doanh nhân lại giận dữ?
    Tiểu bang xanh lớn. Tại sao các doanh nhân ở tiểu bang của bạn lại giận dữ?
    71% GDP ở đất nước này là từ các quận đô thị xanh.
    Elon đã ra đi. Ông ấy đã đến Texas.
    Ông ấy đã rời đi và quay trở lại ngay lập tức.
    Grok ở đâu?
    R&D của ông ấy, trụ sở toàn cầu ở đâu?
    Phần lớn công việc của ông ấy ở đâu?
    Đó là SpaceX và Tesla.
    Ông ấy đã làm điều đó vì ông ấy muốn kiếm tiền để tránh đánh thuế vốn và thuế thu nhập khi ông ấy rút tiền từ 20 năm sự hào phóng mà người nộp thuế ở California đã tạo ra, một môi trường quy định đã tạo ra ngành công nghiệp này nhờ vào các tiêu chuẩn phát thải xe của chúng ta và đã trợ cấp cho ngành công nghiệp đó hàng tỷ đô la tiền thuế để làm cho Elon trở nên giàu có.
    Và rồi ông ấy đã quay lưng lại để không phải trả thuế vốn.
    Nhưng bạn biết không, tôi nghĩ rằng –
    Và nhân tiện, ông ấy quay lại rồi.
    Tất cả AI của ông ấy, tất cả AI của ông ấy ở đâu?
    Tất cả ở California.
    Tất cả nhân viên nghiên cứu và phát triển của ông ấy đều ở California?
    Mọi điều bạn nói có thể là đúng.
    Và tôi không biết chi tiết về nó, vì vậy tôi không thể bình luận về điều đó.
    Nhưng một lần nữa, cảm nhận.
    Tôi biết.
    Quay lại với cảm nhận.
    Tôi đồng ý.
    Khi tôi ở, bạn biết đấy, ở Vương quốc Anh, khi tôi thấy đảng Dân chủ tấn công những cá nhân thực sự thành công như vậy và Biden tấn công Elon Musk, hãy nhìn, tôi sẽ không đi vào chi tiết về những điều không hoàn hảo của Elon Musk và các vấn đề khác.
    Elon là người đặc biệt trong khía cạnh đó.
    Ông ấy khiến cho việc tấn công cả hai đảng trở nên dễ dàng.
    Nhưng hãy cố gắng, hãy chỉ cố gắng và nhấn mạnh điểm này, đó là đảng Dân chủ có xu hướng là những người chỉ trích những người thành công nhất thế giới.
    Tôi đồng ý.
    Và nói rằng họ như thế này và thế kia, và không bao giờ dừng lại để nói, thực tế, họ cũng đã làm điều gì tốt.
    Và sự thiếu tinh tế đối với tôi là nơi tôi cảm thấy, tôi không thể, tôi không thể tin tưởng rằng những người này chỉ đơn giản là ác quỷ.
    Tôi không thể tin rằng họ chỉ đơn giản là ác quỷ và chỉ có điều xấu, mà là điều duy nhất tôi nghe thấy.
    Nhưng về phía bên phải, bạn có thể nghe điều ngược lại.
    Sự tinh tế ở đây là gì?
    Bạn có thể nói điều gì tích cực về Elon Musk không?
    Tôi đã không còn ai ủng hộ Elon Musk mạnh mẽ hơn tôi trong 20 năm qua.
    Tôi là người ủng hộ lớn nhất của ông ấy.
    Thực tế, tôi đã mua one trong những chiếc Tesla đầu tiên ngay từ dây chuyền sản xuất.
    Tôi đã là người ủng hộ và quảng bá lớn nhất cho ông ấy trong nhiều thập kỷ.
    Vì vậy, tôi đã nói điều đó đi nói lại.
    Nó có xu hướng chỉ tiêu cực về những doanh nhân này.
    Bạn biết đấy, bạn có thể hiểu từ chính trị cánh tả trên toàn thế giới dường như có một sự khinh thường nhất định đối với các doanh nhân thành công.
    Vì vậy, hãy nói về điều đó.
    Đó là phần tồi tệ nhất của đảng tôi.
    Tôi không thể chịu đựng được.
    Tôi không có gì chống đối thành công của người khác.
    Tôi bị cảm hứng bởi điều đó.
    Tôi ngưỡng mộ điều đó.
    Chúng ta đã mở đầu cuộc trò chuyện này với tất cả những người hùng của tôi.
    Như Richard Branson là một người hùng của tôi.
    Tôi yêu thích thành công của ông ấy.
    Tôi yêu sự táo bạo của ông ấy.
    Tôi yêu khả năng cạnh tranh của ông ấy.
    Tôi yêu khả năng quảng bá, tạo việc làm, cơ hội và sự giàu có.
    Tôi nghĩ đó là một vấn đề lớn trong đảng Dân chủ.
    Và chúng ta không làm đủ để nhấn mạnh điểm cơ bản này, bạn biết đấy, rằng bạn không thể vừa ủng hộ việc làm mà lại chống lại doanh nghiệp, chấm dứt.
    Và chúng ta cần phải nói điều đó.
    Và chúng ta cần chứng minh điều đó.
    Nhìn xem, điều đó khiến tôi phát điên.
    Một nửa số bạn bè của tôi ở đó, có thể không phải một nửa, nhiều hơn một nửa, đã ở đó với Donald Trump khi ông ấy nhậm chức.
    Và biểu tượng của điều đó là ông ấy có sự ủng hộ, và họ ủng hộ ông, của các doanh nhân và những người tạo ước mơ trong đất nước này.
    Vâng.
    Tôi đã nghĩ, Chúa ơi, chỉ riêng điều đó thôi, tiệc tùng của tôi đâu rồi?
    Tại sao chúng ta lại phải biện hộ cho các doanh nhân và lãnh đạo doanh nghiệp?
    Bạn có tôn trọng Elon không?
    Tôi đã tôn trọng ông ấy từ lâu, nhưng ông ấy đã thay đổi trong bảy, tám năm qua.
    Ông ấy đã thay đổi.
    Và tôi nói điều đó với rất nhiều bạn bè chung, ai cũng nói như vậy.
    Thực sự, tôi là một trong những người cuối cùng nhận ra điều đó.
    Tôi đã nghĩ, không, ông ấy cũng ổn thôi.
    Ngay cả sau khi ông ấy rời, theo cách nói, Tesla – mà thực chất họ không rời đi.
    Họ không chuyển một công việc nào cả.
    Họ chỉ thay đổi trụ sở công ty.
    Ông ấy đã trở lại vài tháng sau.
    Bạn có thể tìm thấy trên mạng một cuộc họp báo mà tôi đã có khi ông ấy chuyển trụ sở R&D thế giới trở lại California.
    Và tôi đã khen ngợi Elon.
    Đó không phải là lâu lắm trước đây.
    Đó là sau khi, theo cách nói, ông ấy rời bang California.
    Nhưng bây giờ ông ấy đã khác.
    Có điều gì đó đã thay đổi.
    Và bây giờ, dĩ nhiên, điều đó đã được phơi bày khắp nơi.
    Không chỉ từ góc nhìn của cánh trái hay cánh phải.
    Nhưng tôi đã lâu rồi ngưỡng mộ ông ấy.
    Ông ấy đã tạo ra toàn bộ thị trường này.
    Và ông ấy hoàn toàn đúng về cái dự luật lớn đẹp đẽ này.
    Ông ấy 100% đúng khi nói rằng chúng ta đang gắp lại những điều ngu ngốc, và đang đầu tư vào quá khứ trong khi phần còn lại của thế giới đang vươn lên.
    Trung Quốc sẽ vượt mặt chúng ta trong lĩnh vực xe điện.
    Họ sẽ vượt mặt chúng ta về tương lai và thống trị nó bởi những gì mà Donald Trump đã làm và đảo ngược sự tiến bộ đã đạt được trong khoảng một thập kỷ qua, đặc biệt là liên quan đến những gì vừa xảy ra với IRA và đặc biệt là với dự luật cơ sở hạ tầng mà cựu tổng thống Hoa Kỳ đã thông qua.
    Vì vậy, tôi đồng ý với ông ấy về nhiều điều, nhưng có một số vấn đề về nhân cách mà tôi nghi ngờ.
    Tôi đề cập đến tên ông ấy, có lẽ, vì ông ấy hiện giờ rất có ảnh hưởng ở đất nước này, nhưng ông ấy cũng như một người đứng đầu về một loại, bạn biết đấy, về doanh nhân và đổi mới.
    Vì vậy, ông ấy, và bây giờ ông ấy cũng sở hữu X, vì vậy nền tảng này rất lớn.
    Nếu bạn một ngày nào đó trở thành tổng thống, thái độ của bạn sẽ như thế nào đối với các doanh nhân như ông ấy?
    Và điều đó khác như thế nào so với lịch sử dân chủ?
    Chúng ta sẽ tôn vinh, tôn sùng tinh thần doanh nhân của họ.
    Chúng ta sẽ tôn vinh họ.
    Chúng ta sẽ tôn vinh những đóng góp của họ.
    Một lần nữa, chúng ta không, chúng ta không, ý tôi là, tôi chỉ, ý tưởng rằng đảng của chúng ta được gán nhãn bởi sự begrudging (thù ghét) thành công của người khác.
    Đó là một sự tàn phá đối với, tôi nghĩ rằng, những khát vọng của những gì mà điều đó có nghĩa.
    Rất nhiều điều mà ý nghĩa của việc ở Mỹ và California là giấc mơ.
    Nó gắn liền với khái niệm về sự di động xã hội, rằng có sự không giới hạn về việc là ai và làm bất cứ điều gì.
    Và vì vậy, công việc của tôi với tư cách là thống đốc và công việc của tôi ở bất kỳ vị trí nào sẽ là tạo ra những điều kiện mà mọi người cảm thấy được bao gồm, cảm thấy được nhìn thấy, nơi họ có thể sống cuộc sống của họ trở lại.
    Những gì tôi đã nói trước đó, lớn tiếng, và chúng ta tạo ra những điều kiện mà thành công của họ trở nên không thể tránh khỏi hoặc không thể cưỡng lại.
    Và tôi nghĩ rằng rất nhiều điều mà lãnh đạo là kiểm soát khí hậu, không theo nghĩa bền vững.
    Và nó không còn là lệnh và kiểm soát nữa.
    Những gì tôi lo ngại bây giờ là sự lệnh và kiểm soát của chủ nghĩa tư bản thân quen quay trở lại nước Mỹ vì Donald Trump.
    Bạn phải hôn nhẫn.
    Bạn không hôn nhẫn, sẽ có hậu quả.
    Bạn muốn miễn thuế?
    Chỉ cần gọi điện, hoặc tốt hơn nữa, hãy đóng góp.
    Có thể bạn sẽ đóng góp một cách gián tiếp bằng cách mua một số đồng tiền điện tử.
    Và món đóng góp đó sẽ nhận được lợi ích.
    Có thể bạn thực hiện một thỏa thuận ở nước ngoài về vũ khí và chúng tôi sẽ lo liệu cho sân golf.
    Có thể chúng tôi sẽ lo liệu cho hai tòa nhà mới cho gia đình.
    Đó là những gì đã xảy ra dưới thời Trump chỉ trong sáu tháng.
    Đến một mức độ nào đó, không bao giờ.
    Không thể tưởng tượng nổi ở Mỹ mà thấy điều này với quy mô và mức độ này.
    Và điều đó, theo tôi, không phải là kinh tế tự do.
    Tôi vừa đầu tư hàng triệu vào điều này và trở thành đồng sở hữu của công ty.
    Đó là một công ty có tên là Ketone IQ.
    Và câu chuyện thì khá thú vị.
    Tôi bắt đầu nói về ketosis trên podcast này và thực tế là tôi rất ít carb, rất, rất ít đường.
    Và cơ thể tôi sản xuất ketone, điều đã giúp tôi tập trung chưa từng có, cải thiện sức bền, cải thiện tâm trạng và khiến tôi có khả năng hơn trong việc làm những gì tôi đang làm ở đây.
    Và bởi vì tôi đã nói về nó trên podcast, vài tuần sau, những sản phẩm này đã xuất hiện trên bàn làm việc của tôi ở trụ sở tại London.
    Và ôi Chúa ơi.
    Tác động mà điều này có đối với khả năng diễn đạt của tôi, sự tập trung, các bài tập thể dục, tâm trạng của tôi, và việc ngăn không cho tôi bị sụp đổ suốt cả ngày thật sâu sắc đến nỗi tôi đã liên hệ với các nhà sáng lập của công ty.
    Và bây giờ tôi là đồng sở hữu của doanh nghiệp này.
    Tôi rất, rất khuyên bạn nên tìm hiểu về điều này.
    Tôi rất khuyên bạn nên xem xét khoa học đằng sau sản phẩm.
    Nếu bạn muốn thử nó cho chính mình, hãy truy cập ketone.com slash Stephen để được giảm giá 30% cho đơn đặt hàng đăng ký của bạn.
    Và bạn cũng sẽ nhận được một món quà miễn phí với lô hàng thứ hai của bạn.
    Đó là ketone.com slash Stephen.
    Và tôi rất vinh dự khi một lần nữa, một công ty mà tôi sở hữu có thể tài trợ cho podcast của tôi.
    Thế giới bây giờ có an toàn hơn dưới thời Trump so với thời Biden không?
    Câu hỏi này có phần phức tạp.
    Tôi không nghĩ rằng đây là an toàn một cách tuyệt đối.
    Ý tôi là –
    Trong bối cảnh chiến tranh và khả năng xảy ra Thế chiến III, chúng ta có –
    Tôi nghĩ rằng nó khó đoán hơn trước đây.
    Tôi lo lắng về sự phổ biến hạt nhân.
    Tôi lo lắng về AI.
    Biden không làm tốt lắm.
    Khi tôi xem cuộc tranh luận đó và ông ấy vật lộn với những từ ngữ và không thể diễn đạt rõ ràng các câu, tôi đã –
    Tôi là người đại diện chính cho ông ấy đêm đó, vì vậy –
    Người đại diện chính?
    Đúng.
    Ý tôi là, tôi đã ở đó đại diện cho chiến dịch để biện hộ –
    Ôi, vậy là bạn đã ở đó?
    Để –
    Tôi thực sự nghĩ rằng tôi đã thấy bạn sau đó trong các cuộc phỏng vấn.
    Tôi đã cố gắng hết sức để –
    Và bạn về nhà với một người đã đưa bạn đi dự tiệc.
    Và, bạn biết đấy, tôi tự hào vì đã ủng hộ ông ấy, nhưng đó là một đêm khó khăn.
    Did you realize in that-
    Bạn đã nhận ra ở đó chưa-
    Was that the moment you realized that he wasn’t-
    Có phải đó là lúc bạn nhận ra rằng anh ấy không-
    Right when he walked out on stage.
    Ngay khi anh ấy bước ra sân khấu.
    Doing well.
    Mọi thứ đang diễn ra tốt.
    I was in the back.
    Tôi ở phía sau.
    I’ll never forget physically standing up as I was watching and going, ooh.
    Tôi sẽ không bao giờ quên đứng dậy khi tôi đang quan sát và nói, ồ.
    And I turned to my staff.
    Và tôi đã quay sang nhân viên của mình.
    I said, something’s off.
    Tôi nói, có điều gì đó không ổn.
    Right when he walked on stage.
    Ngay khi anh ấy bước lên sân khấu.
    Felt it.
    Cảm giác được điều đó.
    It was the only time I saw that was at a fundraiser here that he had after he had no sleep.
    Đó là lần duy nhất tôi thấy điều đó là tại một sự kiện gây quỹ ở đây mà anh ấy có sau khi không ngủ.
    And I just, we all just literally assumed it was just jet lag and he had flown back and forth
    Và chúng tôi, tất cả chúng tôi, thực sự giả định rằng đó chỉ là do lệch múi giờ và anh ấy đã bay đi bay về
    and over a week back and forth to Europe twice and he had a late night.
    trong hơn một tuần đi đi về về châu Âu hai lần và anh ấy đã có một đêm muộn.
    And I thought, boy, he’s just not on.
    Và tôi nghĩ, trời ơi, anh ấy thật sự không tỉnh táo.
    Like, and that was in private, not just his public comments with President Obama that night.
    Như vậy, và điều đó là ở riêng tư, không chỉ là những phát biểu công khai của anh ấy với Tổng thống Obama đêm đó.
    There was a lot of talk rhetoric that there was an internal desire to overthrow him around
    Đã có rất nhiều cuộc thảo luận rằng có một mong muốn bên trong muốn lật đổ anh ấy quanh thời điểm đó
    that time because you could see on TV he was struggling and in the polls and Donald Trump
    vì bạn có thể thấy trên TV anh ấy đang gặp khó khăn và trong các cuộc thăm dò ý kiến và Donald Trump
    was reveling in it.
    đã vui mừng vì điều đó.
    And then I heard this narrative coming up that, you know, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic
    Và sau đó tôi nghe thấy câu chuyện này xuất hiện rằng, bạn biết đấy, Nancy Pelosi và Đảng Dân chủ
    Party were having private conversations and telling him to step down and forcing him out.
    đang có những cuộc trò chuyện riêng tư và nói với anh ấy rằng hãy từ chức và ép anh ấy ra.
    All cards on the table, 100% truth.
    Tất cả các quân bài trên bàn, 100% sự thật.
    Is there any truth in that?
    Có phần nào sự thật trong đó không?
    Yeah.
    Có.
    No, a lot of that was happening.
    Không, nhiều điều đó đã diễn ra.
    I mean, a lot of people were, I mean, there was a phone tree that lit up that night.
    Ý tôi là, rất nhiều người, tôi ý nói, đã có một hệ thống điện thoại được kích hoạt đêm đó.
    There was a text tree, phone tree, email, just blew up.
    Đã có một hệ thống tin nhắn, điện thoại, email, tất cả đã bùng nổ.
    Saying?
    Nói gì?
    People were in panic.
    Mọi người đã ở trong tình trạng hoảng loạn.
    Total, full-fledged panic.
    Hoàn toàn, hoảng loạn toàn diện.
    And there was a need and desire to know that he was okay and that this was momentary or
    Và có một nhu cầu và mong muốn biết rằng anh ấy ổn và đây chỉ là tạm thời hoặc
    discovered there was something else.
    phát hiện ra rằng có điều gì khác.
    Maybe he had a cold.
    Có thể anh ấy bị cảm lạnh.
    Maybe there’s some other issue.
    Có thể có một vấn đề khác.
    And it led to those kind of conversations that many have been made public, many private.
    Và nó dẫn đến những loại cuộc trò chuyện như vậy mà nhiều cái đã được công khai, nhiều cái riêng tư.
    Led to meetings with Democratic governors in the White House with the president around the table.
    Dẫn đến các cuộc họp với các thống đốc Đảng Dân chủ trong Nhà Trắng với tổng thống quanh bàn.
    Including you.
    Bao gồm cả bạn.
    Including me.
    Bao gồm cả tôi.
    Mr. President, tell us, you know, what’s your path?
    Ông President, hãy cho chúng tôi biết, con đường của ông là gì?
    How are you feeling?
    Ông cảm thấy thế nào?
    Some honest back and forth with a few governors that challenged him a little bit more than one
    Một vài thống đốc đã thảo luận một cách trung thực và thách thức ông ấy nhiều hơn một chút so với một cách thông thường
    would have expected with sort of protocol within the party.
    mà mọi người có thể mong đợi với cách thức giao thức trong đảng.
    And yeah, a real desire, obviously, to turn the page.
    Và vâng, một mong muốn thực sự, rõ ràng, để vượt qua trang mới.
    And ultimately that manifested with a decision he made and led to, obviously, our nominee,
    Và cuối cùng điều đó phản ánh qua một quyết định mà ông ấy đã đưa ra và dẫn đến, rõ ràng, ứng cử viên của chúng tôi,
    his vice president.
    phó tổng thống của ông ấy.
    He was effectively pushed out of the party by pressure.
    Ông ấy thực sự bị áp lực đẩy ra khỏi đảng.
    Yeah.
    Vâng.
    Because he wanted to continue.
    Bởi vì ông ấy muốn tiếp tục.
    That was clear.
    Điều đó rất rõ ràng.
    He said that.
    Ông ấy đã nói điều đó.
    Yeah.
    Vâng.
    He believed he was the only one that could beat Donald Trump.
    Ông ấy tin rằng ông là người duy nhất có thể đánh bại Donald Trump.
    Yeah.
    Vâng.
    Having beat him once, he was convinced he could do it again.
    Sau khi đã đánh bại ông ấy một lần, ông ấy tin chắc có thể làm điều đó một lần nữa.
    He believed that his record of the lowest black unemployment, Hispanic unemployment, lowest
    Ông ấy tin rằng thành tích của mình về tỷ lệ thất nghiệp của người da đen thấp nhất, tỷ lệ thất nghiệp của người gốc Tây Ban Nha, thấp nhất cho phụ nữ
    unemployment for women, the best economy in 60 years as it relates to jobs and GDP growth,
    tỷ lệ thất nghiệp của phụ nữ, nền kinh tế tốt nhất trong 60 năm liên quan đến việc làm và tăng trưởng GDP,
    inflation that was cooling from 9.1 and was moving in the right direction with the Chips
    lạm phát đã giảm từ 9.1 và đang đi theo hướng tích cực với Đạo luật Chips
    and Science Act, with the infrastructure bill, the IRA, 400 bipartisan bills.
    và Đạo luật Cơ sở hạ tầng, IRA, 400 dự luật lưỡng đảng.
    He felt lowest uninsured rates.
    Ông cảm thấy tỷ lệ không được bảo hiểm thấp nhất.
    They felt like things directionally were moving despite the inflation scars.
    Họ cảm thấy rằng mọi thứ đã đang thay đổi theo hướng tích cực bất chấp những vết sẹo của lạm phát.
    And then he can make that case.
    Và rồi ông ấy có thể đưa ra lập luận đó.
    He felt that.
    Ông ấy cảm thấy điều đó.
    He really did feel that way.
    Ông ấy thực sự cảm thấy như vậy.
    A lot of the narrative was that you were going to step in potentially at last minute.
    Nhiều câu chuyện đã nói rằng bạn có thể bước vào vào phút chót.
    And I know in your head, you must have been mulling and thinking about going back and
    và tôi biết trong đầu bạn, bạn chắc chắn đã suy nghĩ và nghĩ về việc quay trở lại và
    forward, about different possibilities and outcomes.
    đi tới, về những khả năng và kết quả khác nhau.
    Things were moving so quickly and there was such little time.
    Mọi thứ đang diễn ra nhanh chóng và thời gian thì rất ít.
    I saw your name mentioned all the time associated with stepping in to replace him.
    Tôi thấy tên của bạn được đề cập mọi lúc liên quan đến việc thay thế anh ấy.
    No, but I was also the one that was out there still campaigning for him after everyone else
    Không, nhưng tôi cũng là người vẫn đang đi vận động cho anh ấy sau khi mọi người khác đã quay lưng lại.
    had turned his back.
    Nhưng bạn chắc chắn trong đầu bạn vào ban đêm đã nghĩ rằng mọi thứ có thể thay đổi.
    You talked about what shaped me, those moments.
    Khi tôi nói không có ánh sáng, khi tôi nói, bạn biết đấy, tôi phải bù đắp cho việc khiến gã này và bản thân mình thất vọng, khi tôi đã vào, tôi đã vào.
    When I say no daylight, when I say, you know, I got to make up for disappointing this guy
    Và tôi sẽ nói với bạn, đồng tiền quý giá nhất trong chính trị là lòng trung thành, chấm hết.
    and myself, when I’m in, I’m in.
    Willie Brown đã dạy tôi điều đó.
    And I’ll tell you, the coin of the realm in politics is loyalty, period, full stop.
    Và Joe Biden, tôi đã sẵn sàng đứng về phía ông ấy.
    So I literally, I’m telling you, look me in the eye.
    Vì vậy, tôi thực sự nói với bạn, hãy nhìn tôi vào mắt.
    Yeah.
    Vâng.
    Because I know it’s cynical.
    Bởi vì tôi biết điều đó có vẻ hoài nghi.
    Did not think along those lines.
    Tôi không nghĩ theo những đường hướng đó.
    After he dropped out, those minutes later, and my cell phone blew up, I confess that
    Sau khi anh ấy rút lui, ít phút sau đó, điện thoại di động của tôi đã bùng nổ, tôi thú nhận rằng
    there were a number of people that wondered.
    thật ra có một số người đã tự hỏi.
    And I imagine you can, you know, there were plenty of people sort of circling and go, well,
    và tôi tưởng tượng rằng bạn có thể, bạn biết đấy, có rất nhiều người đã xoay quanh và nói, có lẽ
    maybe this is the moment.
    đây là thời điểm.
    Once he dropped out.
    Một khi anh ấy rút lui.
    I, to be candid, I’m going to get in trouble for saying this because I haven’t said it public.
    Tôi, để thẳng thắn, tôi sẽ gặp rắc rối khi nói điều này vì tôi chưa nói công khai.
    I was a little angry.
    Tôi đã có chút tức giận.
    I didn’t get a heads up.
    Tôi không được thông báo trước.
    You didn’t get a heads up that he was dropping out.
    Bạn không được thông báo trước rằng anh ấy sẽ rút lui.
    Just give me like a text, two minutes, because I was embarrassed.
    Chỉ cần cho tôi một tin nhắn, hai phút, bởi vì tôi đã cảm thấy xấu hổ.
    I was sitting with a group of people.
    Tôi đang ngồi với một nhóm người.
    I was, and I was like, my phone rang.
    Tôi đã, và tôi đã như, điện thoại tôi đổ chuông.
    I was like, wow.
    Tôi đã như, wow.
    So I was, my first reaction, honestly, was like, geez, man, all this stuff I did for this
    guy, I didn’t know, not even a heads up.
    Vì vậy, phản ứng đầu tiên của tôi, thật lòng, là như, ồ, tất cả những thứ tôi đã làm cho gã này, tôi không biết, không hề có thông báo trước.
    And first missed call, true story.
    Và cuộc gọi nhỡ đầu tiên, câu chuyện có thật.
    I didn’t even know it was an unknown number.
    Tôi thậm chí không biết đó là số không rõ.
    I didn’t even look at it for about six hours.
    Tôi thậm chí đã không nhìn vào nó trong khoảng sáu giờ.
    And it was Kamala.
    Và đó là Kamala.
    Kamala?
    Cô ấy chỉ gọi cho tôi.
    She only made the call to me.
    Saying what?
    Nói gì?
    Just a voicemail.
    Chỉ là một tin nhắn thoại.
    Love to talk.
    Rất muốn nói chuyện.
    About what?
    Về cái gì?
    She was running.
    Cô ấy đã tranh cử.
    So it’s, you know, and a few hours later, I put out a press release supporting her candidacy.
    Vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, và vài giờ sau, tôi đã phát hành một thông cáo báo chí ủng hộ sự ứng cử của cô ấy.
    What should the Democratic Party have done with the wisdom of hindsight in that moment instead
    Đảng Dân chủ nên làm gì với trí tuệ của thời gian trong khoảnh khắc đó thay vì chỉ đặt Kamala vào thẳng?
    of just putting Kamala straight in?
    All geniuses in hindsight.
    Tất cả đều là những thiên tài khi đã nhìn lại.
    I don’t know what you could have possibly done with just such a short runway.
    Tôi không biết bạn có thể làm gì với một khoảng thời gian ngắn như vậy.
    You had the vice president of the United States.
    Bạn có phó tổng thống Hoa Kỳ.
    You had the apparatus that was built within the party.
    Bạn có hệ thống đã được xây dựng trong đảng.
    You had the legal ability for her because it was the Biden-Harris campaign to transfer a lot of that.
    Bạn có quyền chuyển nhượng nhiều thứ cho cô ấy vì đó là chiến dịch Biden-Harris.
    Yeah.
    Vâng.
    You had little time.
    Bạn có rất ít thời gian.
    You would have opened up to a circular firing squad.
    Bạn sẽ mở ra một đội bắn tròn.
    But it didn’t work.
    Nhưng điều đó đã không diễn ra.
    As it relates to the party.
    Liên quan đến đảng.
    In hindsight, it didn’t work.
    Nhìn lại, điều đó đã không thành công.
    What could you have done with the benefit of hindsight that might have worked?
    Bạn có thể đã làm gì với lợi ích của việc nhìn lại có thể đã thành công?
    Yeah.
    Vâng.
    Would have, could have, should have.
    Có thể đã, lẽ ra đã, đáng lẽ đã.
    I don’t live in that.
    Tôi không sống trong chuyện đó.
    Tôi nghĩ, nhưng mà, tôi sống ở nơi mà chúng tôi, nơi mà chúng tôi đã khám phá một khoảnh khắc trước đó. Và điều đó tạo thành một sự phản ánh rộng hơn về vị trí của đảng, ít hơn về các cá nhân. Và tôi nghĩ đó là sai lầm lớn nhất của chúng tôi. Chúng tôi quá bị ám ảnh bởi những cá nhân. Chính trị đồng tính. Vâng, nhưng, vấn đề liên quan đến chính trị đồng tính nói chung, nhưng không chỉ là một người. À, được rồi. Đó là những người mà chúng ta đại diện. Và có một từ mà chúng ta không sử dụng trước đó, nhưng bạn đã dùng nó liên quan đến Trump. Yếu điểm so với sức mạnh. Và tôi sẽ nói với bạn, đối với tôi, ở cốt lõi, cuối cùng, đối với tôi, đó là sự phân biệt mà có lẽ nói lên nhiều điều hơn theo nhiều cách trong nhiều ngày về vị trí của hai đảng chúng ta. Donald Trump tỏa ra, một cách kỳ lạ, sức mạnh. Tôi nghĩ rằng đó là sự yếu đuối cải trang thành sức mạnh. Đảng của chúng tôi có vẻ yếu ớt đối với nhiều người, quá nhiều. Và tôi nhớ Bill Clinton, sau đợt thi hành, chúng tôi đã bị đánh bại trong cuộc bầu cử giữa nhiệm kỳ. Và ông ấy nói, khi được chọn, Bill Clinton đã nói, người dân Mỹ luôn ủng hộ sức mạnh sai lầm hơn là sự yếu đuối đúng đắn. Có điều gì đó về điều đó. Tôi nghĩ rằng khái niệm sức mạnh này, tôi nghĩ nó liên quan đến những cậu bé trẻ. Tôi nghĩ nó liên quan đến Trump và Trumpism, những gì ông ấy bán, những gì ông ấy đại diện cho mọi người. Tôi nghĩ trong sự phân biệt đó, có thể là một con đường cho đảng của chúng tôi. Và câu hỏi cuối cùng của tôi trước khi tôi đi đến cuốn sách, đó là câu hỏi mà khách mời trước đó để lại, là có khả năng cao, mà tôi biết, rằng tôi đang ngồi với vị tổng thống tương lai của Hoa Kỳ. Có một khả năng. Ngay cả khi đó là khả năng 1%, đó là một cơ hội phi thường để hỏi câu hỏi này. Tôi cho bạn 1%. Vâng, ngay cả khi đó là 1%. Nhưng tôi đã nhìn vào tỷ lệ cược trước khi tôi đi ra ngoài. Vì vậy, tôi biết rằng nó cao hơn. Dưới sự lãnh đạo của bạn, nếu tôi lấy cái bút nhỏ của Men in Black có thể xóa trí nhớ, và tôi xóa trí nhớ của mình về Đảng Dân chủ, và tôi xóa trí nhớ của Đảng Dân chủ cho tất cả khán giả của tôi đang xem, và bạn có một nền tảng sạch để định nghĩa lại đảng đó. Và chúng tôi không nhớ hoặc không phản ánh về quá khứ. Và đảng đó đang lên kế hoạch cho cuộc bầu cử năm 2028 chống lại đảng Cộng hòa MAGA, có thể do J.D. Vance lãnh đạo. Đề xuất đó là gì? Tôi là một người trẻ tuổi, nhưng không chỉ cho đàn ông trẻ, cho mọi người. Đề xuất mà bạn đưa ra là gì? Nó nghe như thế nào? Và tôi không muốn bất kỳ điều gì liên quan đến chính trị. Không, không, không. Nó nghe như thế nào? Và bạn có thể hiểu, tôi hy vọng, rằng tôi không có loại câu trả lời nào xứng đáng với câu hỏi đó. Bởi vì đó là một câu hỏi tuyệt vời. Và đó là câu hỏi cơ bản cần được trả lời bởi bất kỳ ai đang ứng cử tổng thống Hoa Kỳ. Và nó cần được thực hiện một cách nhất quán. Nó không thể chỉ là, theo quan điểm của bạn, những lời nhảm nhí. Nó không thể là một nhóm tập hợp được kiểm chứng bởi ý kiến, một đống từ ngữ và những điều nhảm nhí. Trái tim bạn nói gì? Bạn phải cảm nhận nó. Trong nhiều khía cạnh, điều mà chúng ta vừa kết thúc, tôi nghĩ khái niệm giấc mơ này, tôi nghĩ có điều gì đó về lý do tại sao chúng ta lại ở bên nhau, đó là sự giao thoa giữa tinh thần khởi nghiệp, khát vọng, cảm hứng, sự phát triển, cơ hội, sự bao gồm, điểm bắt đầu để trả lời và làm rõ, hoặc tạo ra một câu trả lời mà làm rõ vấn đề. Và chính trong không gian đó, tôi bị cuốn hút. Tôi bị cuốn hút bởi sự đóng góp và phục vụ, khái niệm về dịch vụ này, tư tưởng cộng đồng, khái niệm rằng tất cả chúng ta đều tốt hơn và tất cả chúng ta đều tốt hơn. Tôi nghĩ rằng phục vụ công cộng nên là một yêu cầu, phục vụ quốc gia. Nhưng chính trong không gian đó, cuối cùng, tôi nghĩ, một câu trả lời sẽ xuất hiện. Và có rất nhiều, thật buồn cười vì chính trị, càng ngày tôi càng học nhiều về nó, là cuộc chiến giữa lý trí và logic và sau đó là cảm xúc và nhận thức, tôi đoán vậy. Đúng vậy. Vì vậy, bạn đã nói về một số điều tuyệt vời mà Đảng Dân chủ đã làm, nhưng thật điên rồ khi các tiêu đề lại bị chi phối bởi một số vấn đề quanh cái gọi là lý thuyết thức tỉnh. 100%. Và gần như trở thành trường hợp rằng mọi người quan tâm, họ bị thúc đẩy cảm xúc hơn bởi ý tưởng rằng con cái họ trong trường học đang được dạy điều gì đó làm hư hỏng tâm trí của chúng hơn là cách kinh tế đang hoạt động hoặc việc làm. Tôi biết. Và đã có, đó là, và tôi nghĩ chúng tôi đã gặp khó khăn để nhận ra điều đó. Làm thế nào để bạn nhận ra điều đó? Họ đã biến đổi hình thức, CRT, ESG, DAI, bất cứ điều gì ba chữ cái. Ý tôi là, chúng tôi đã bị động. Chúng tôi luôn ở thế phòng thủ. Tôi thích những gì Tổng thống Obama vừa nói. Ông ấy đã nói, chúng tôi phải trở nên quyết đoán hơn, phải tấn công. Tôi đã nói điều này trong nhiều năm. Điều đó có nghĩa là gì? Có nghĩa là chúng tôi phải định hình câu chuyện. Ảo giác thống trị. Sự thật không quan trọng. Bạn có những mạng lưới tuyên truyền biến vấn đề thành vũ khí 24/7. Và chúng tôi liên tục phản ứng lại những cuộc chiến văn hóa này. Và hãy để tôi cụ thể hóa điều đó. Tôi nghĩ, bạn biết đấy, thống đốc Utah đã nói đúng nhất, chưa bao giờ quá nhiều sự chú ý lại được tập trung vào quá ít người như liên quan đến vấn đề vận động viên chuyển giới. Ông ấy hoàn toàn đúng. Nhưng cũng có sự thật. Và đó là một phần của kinh doanh. Bạn chỉ là một tấm gương phản chiếu những suy nghĩ nhất quán của bạn. Bất cứ điều gì bạn tập trung vào, bạn sẽ tìm thấy nhiều hơn. Và vì vậy nếu 24/7, đó là tất cả những gì bạn đang nhận từ California, cái này, cái kia, sự đổ vỡ của California, mọi người đều rời đi, nơi tồi tệ nhất để làm mọi thứ khác. Bạn bắt đầu tin vào điều đó. Bạn bắt đầu định hình cuộc trò chuyện của mình. Sau đó bạn bắt đầu tìm thấy những điểm chứng minh. À, có một trại của Enkoma. À, tôi vừa đọc về tội phạm này ở Walmart. Và chỉ có vậy, mọi người đều ra đi bởi vì Elon đã rời đi. Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ rằng câu chuyện có ý nghĩa theo quan điểm của bạn. Trump hiểu điều đó tốt hơn bất kỳ ai. Ông ấy lặp đi lặp lại nhiều lần, bằng ngôn ngữ của bạn tôi, Marshawn Lynch, lặp đi lặp lại, lặp đi lặp lại. Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ việc tràn ngập khu vực theo nghĩa đó, bạn là một bậc thầy trong việc đó. Ý tôi là, đối phó với Chúa, thật sự.
    Tôi có nghĩa là, nếu có ai đó nên thuê bạn, bạn của tôi, thì đó chính là người hiểu về dữ liệu và phân tích, giao tiếp, cách nhắm mục tiêu, thông điệp rộng hơn, các giá trị, thương hiệu, sức mạnh và cách bán hàng. Bạn phải bán nó. Ý tôi là, chúng ta đang ngồi đây nói về Đạo luật Chips và Khoa học. Không ai biết bạn đang nói về cái gì. Chúng tôi đã không bán những gì chúng tôi đang cung cấp. Tôi nghĩ chúng ta cần phải có một… Chúng ta cần phải xây dựng lại thương hiệu này. Vâng. Và cũng đúng, một phần câu trả lời cho câu hỏi mà bạn đã hỏi trước đó cũng là, bạn biết đấy, Ezra Klein và những người khác đã nói về điều này, nhưng là tư duy thịnh vượng. Chúng ta đã có tư duy khan hiếm, một kiểu tư duy zero-sum. Và với tư cách là một doanh nhân, bạn không có tư duy khan hiếm. Và tôi nghĩ rằng một phần trong việc xây dựng thương hiệu của đảng chúng ta, không chỉ liên quan đến nhà ở và các vấn đề liên quan đến những gì Ezra nói về tư duy thịnh vượng, mà còn là tư duy thịnh vượng trong sự phát triển. Và tôi nghĩ rằng, khi tôi nói về ước mơ, tôi cũng muốn nói điều này, nhân tiện, từ nhà tù mà không có vị thống đốc nào khác có thể khẳng định. Bạn có giấc mơ Mỹ và bạn có giấc mơ California. Không có tiểu bang nào khác gắn liền với một giấc mơ. Và tôi nghĩ rằng có điều gì đó gợi nhớ trong đó vì điều đó truyền cảm hứng cho một hành trình mà chúng ta có thể cùng nhau tham gia. Và vì vậy, tôi bị cuốn hút bởi ngôn ngữ của những năm 60. Và Bobby Kennedy là anh hùng chính trị của tôi, Sarge Shriver và Kennedy. Tất cả về điều đó, giải quyết sự ngu dốt, nghèo đói và bệnh tật và khái niệm về việc cùng nhau tham gia một hành trình, đó chính là lý do của mặt trăng. Và chúng ta có thể thấy mình trên hành trình đó. Hiện tại, bạn biết đấy, đội xanh đối đầu với đội đỏ. Đây là một cuộc chiến bên trong đất nước này. Và tôi nghĩ ai cũng có thể lãnh đạo trong bốn năm hoặc ba năm tới, đây là về việc khôi phục lại sự gắn kết này và cùng nhau thực hiện một hành trình. Bởi vì như tôi thường nói, ly hôn không phải là một lựa chọn. Có hai điều khác xuất hiện trong đầu tôi khi bạn đang nói là, tôi luôn tự hỏi ở California, cụ thể là ở LA. Tôi đã nói với bạn rằng tôi đã chuyển đến đây. Hóa ra tôi vừa chuyển vào chỗ của mình ngày hôm qua. Tôi đã ở trong một cửa hàng CVS, tôi nghĩ là như vậy, và tôi đang cố gắng lấy một ít kem đánh răng. Thật khủng khiếp, đúng không? Vâng, tôi không thể tin được. Tôi đã nói với nhóm, điều này giống như cách đây sáu tháng, tôi đã đến một cửa hàng CVS để lấy chút kem đánh răng. Và tôi đến chỗ kem đánh răng, và nó trong một cái lồng. Tôi đã nói với cô ấy ở đó, tôi đã hỏi, tại sao kem đánh răng lại ở trong lồng? Cô ấy chỉ xuống lối đi, có một người đàn ông, một người vô gia cư, đang nhét đồ vào trong tất của mình. Vâng. Và tôi nghĩ, ôi trời ạ, nếu tôi nhìn qua đó, có những ngôi biệt thự ở trên đồi. Và nếu tôi ở cửa hàng CVS, kem đánh răng lại trong một cái lồng vì những người vô gia cư đang nhét đồ vào trong tất của họ. Vâng. Liệu có sửa được không? Có. Và cái gì đã gây ra điều đó? Ồ, bây giờ bạn đang đối mặt với những vấn đề hệ thống lớn hơn, kéo dài qua nhiều thập kỷ, và sự phân hóa giữa người có và không có, và điều đó dẫn đến- Nghiện ma túy. Vâng. Và những vấn đề cụ thể xung quanh tình trạng vô gia cư, và điều đó liên quan đến các vấn đề sâu hơn về sức khỏe tâm thần, hành vi, vấn đề sức khỏe, khả năng chi trả, khủng hoảng nhà ở. Nhưng nhìn này- Liệu có sửa được không? Có. Theo định nghĩa, nó có thể sửa được. Tại sao không ai sửa chữa nó? Nó đang được sửa chữa. Thật vậy? Và tiến bộ thực sự đang được thực hiện. Chúng ta đang thấy sự giảm mạnh đáng kể, liên tiếp qua các năm về tội phạm. Chúng ta đang thấy sự giảm mạnh đáng kể về trộm cắp bán lẻ có tổ chức. Chúng ta đang thấy sự giảm mạnh đáng kể, bao gồm cả ngay tại LA. Họ đã công bố sự giảm 17,5% trong hai năm qua về số lượng người trên đường phố, vỉa hè và vô gia cư không được điều kiện. Điều đó đã được công bố vào ngày hôm qua bởi thị trưởng. Vậy là có tiến bộ trong tất cả những trường hợp này. Vì vậy, hoàn toàn, nó có thể giải quyết được. Bạn đã trở nên quyết liệt hơn về điểm này, vì tôi thấy thông báo bạn đã đưa ra, và tôi đã theo dõi rất sát cách đây vài năm khi bạn thông báo rằng bạn sẽ phải dọn các trại này khỏi đường phố. Chà, tôi đã chán ngấy với điều đó. Nó thật mệt mỏi. Dọn dẹp chúng đi. Đó là nhiệm vụ của một thị trưởng. Nhiệm vụ của tôi với tư cách là thị trưởng, cựu thị trưởng của San Francisco. Hãy làm công việc của bạn. Dọn dẹp chúng đi. Đưa mọi người ra khỏi đường phố. Không có gì- Bước qua mọi người trên đường phố và vỉa hè không phải là lòng nhân ái. Và vì vậy, chúng ta đã tràn ngập các khu vực về sự hỗ trợ và tài nguyên. Bây giờ là về hiệu suất. Tôi có vinh dự lớn khi làm việc với Hoàng tử William ở Anh trong một sáng kiến về vô gia cư, vì vậy tôi biết những phức tạp của vấn đề này. Và một số người nghĩ rằng nó chỉ là một vấn đề về nhà ở, nhưng đã dành thời gian với những người có nguy cơ bị vô gia cư, tôi biết đó là một vấn đề về sự tự tin. Đó là một vấn đề về sức khỏe tâm thần. Đó là một vấn đề về việc làm. Đó là một vấn đề về các con đường vào việc làm. Đó là một vấn đề rất, rất phức tạp. Vì vậy, điều đó thực sự đã khiến tôi bất ngờ, điều mà những người về nhà đã, liên quan đến- Tôi có nghĩa là, tôi luôn nói điều đó. Nơi trú ẩn giải quyết giấc ngủ. Nhà ở và dịch vụ hỗ trợ giải quyết vấn đề vô gia cư. Bạn phải đối mặt với những lý do cơ bản mà người ta ở đường phố và vỉa hè ngay từ đầu. Và vì vậy, đó là về sự tích hợp toàn diện của sự chăm sóc, chăm sóc cả người, như chúng tôi mô tả. Chúng tôi vừa trải qua những cải cách sức khỏe tâm thần quan trọng nhất trong lịch sử Hoa Kỳ. Chúng tôi đã tràn ngập các khu vực với nhiều hỗ trợ hơn, 26.000 đơn vị nhà ở sức khỏe hành vi mới. Chúng tôi đang sản xuất và thu mua ở bang California theo thời gian thực với những cải cách quy hoạch để chúng tôi có thể chỉ định chúng, cải cách phát triển lực lượng lao động, và chúng tôi đang tổ chức lại sự tích hợp xung quanh sức khỏe tâm thần trong các silo và những người có vấn đề nghiện ma túy và rượu và sự tích hợp. Và đây là nguồn đam mê thực sự của tôi trong công việc hàng ngày. Và bạn sẽ thấy sự tiến bộ thực sự trong bang này. Vâng, tôi đã thực hiện một số nghiên cứu trước đó và tôi thấy rằng có một số hành động thực sự quan trọng được thực hiện và chúng rất tinh vi và phức tạp trong giải pháp của chúng. Điều đó thật sự rất khích lệ.
    Và thật khích lệ khi gặp ai đó hiểu rõ sự phức tạp của vấn đề này, bởi vì thực sự câu chuyện mà sẽ thắng trong một chu kỳ bầu cử sẽ mang tính cảm xúc. Nó sẽ đơn giản. Và vì vậy, tôi nghĩ mọi người nên cảnh giác với những câu trả lời cảm xúc và đơn giản và loại bỏ chúng mỗi khi bạn nghe thấy.
    Câu hỏi cuối cùng trước khi tôi hỏi bạn câu này là tất cả các tiêu đề hiện nay đều nói về Jeffrey Epstein. Cách mà vấn đề này đã được xử lý thực sự là điều tôi thấy rất thú vị, vì trên con đường vào văn phòng tổng thống và những vai trò lớn đó, có một số lời hứa được đưa ra về các tài liệu của Epstein và chúng sẽ được công bố. “Nếu bạn bỏ phiếu cho tôi, tôi sẽ công bố những tài liệu này.” Và giờ thì không có gì để xem cả. Vâng. Chuyện gì đã xảy ra vậy? Chà, họ đã nói dối. Họ đã nói dối bạn lúc đó hoặc họ đã nói dối bạn bây giờ, chấm hết. Ai đó đã nói dối về điều này. Họ đã đưa điều này ra để lấy phiếu và họ đã nói dối mọi người. Họ đã lợi dụng mọi người. Và ai đó cần phải được chịu trách nhiệm. Và nhìn xem, tôi có thể tỏ ra hoài nghi về điều đó. Tôi có thể rất chính trị về điều này và nói rằng thật thú vị khi Elon, chúng tôi đã đề cập đến Elon, khi Elon Musk tweet điều gì đó nói rằng Trump nằm trong danh sách. Và chỉ vài ngày sau, không có danh sách nào cả. Bạn có thể hoài nghi về điều đó. Nó dẫn đến một số câu hỏi mở. Bạn sẽ làm gì nếu bạn là Trump trong tình huống đó? Giả sử bạn đã được bầu chọn và công chúng yêu cầu xem danh sách này. Bạn sẽ làm gì? Một điều thì rõ ràng. Tôi biết Pam Bondi khá rõ, tổng chưởng lý. Chúng tôi đã biết nhau nhiều năm. Cô ấy không hành động mà không có Trump. Nếu cô ấy bị sa thải, cô ấy là người phải gánh chịu vì không có nghi ngờ gì rằng cô ấy đã được Trump chỉ đạo để nói những gì cô ấy đã nói. Cô ấy sẽ không, chấm hết, dừng lại, làm điều gì đó độc lập với tổng thống về các tài liệu của Epstein. Vì vậy, Trump là người mà… Vì vậy, một người phải thừa nhận điều đó. Vậy nó gợi ra những câu hỏi bổ sung. Tại sao cô ấy lại được bảo không được công bố các tài liệu trừ khi, A, không có tài liệu nào cả và họ đã bịa ra mọi thứ trong suốt thời gian đó, giống như họ đã bịa ra chứng minh thư của Obama, giống như họ bịa ra hầu hết mọi thứ trong hầu hết các ngày, đây là quan điểm khiêm tốn của tôi. Tôi nghĩ điều đó rất hợp lý. Nó có thể rất đơn giản. Nó có thể đơn giản như vậy. Họ đã bắt đầu âm mưu. Họ đã làm hỏng nó. Họ đã khởi xướng. Họ đang che đậy và họ chỉ như, ôi trời, chúng tôi đã bị bắt. Chúng tôi sử dụng điều này. Chúng tôi đã bóp nặn nó ra. Chúng tôi đã có mọi thứ chúng tôi cần. Chúng tôi đang nắm quyền. Hoặc có thể điều đó còn âm thầm hơn thế. Và nhìn xem, một điều chỉ đơn giản là… Đó chỉ là sự thật đơn giản. Epstein và Trump rất gần gũi. Họ thực sự gần gũi. Không chỉ là một vài bức ảnh. Họ thật sự gần gũi. Đó là một sự thật. Xin lỗi, Donald. Chỉ là sự thật. Vì vậy, nhìn xem, tôi hiểu tại sao điều này khiến mọi người phẫn nộ. Tôi nghĩ đây là điều thú vị. Điều này đã khiến một số người trong cái gọi là “cốt lõi” phẫn nộ. Tôi rất thích điều đó. Tôi chỉ… Tôi đã nói… Đó là tiếng nói riêng tư của tôi được nói ra như một người Dân chủ. Và, vâng. Và tôi hy vọng đảng chúng tôi sẽ phát triển điều này nhiều hơn giống như họ sẽ làm. Nếu bạn vào văn phòng, mọi người sẽ nói, hãy công bố danh sách. Ý tôi là, nếu có một… Họ sẽ, họ sẽ nói… Tôi sẽ cam kết công bố danh sách hoặc cái gì? Vâng. Trừ khi có một bí mật quốc gia nào đó ở đây hoặc cái gì đó. Và tôi biết điều đó dẫn đến suy đoán về Mossad và những suy đoán khác. Ý tôi là, liệu anh ta có nằm trong danh sách tình báo nước ngoài không? Và có thật sự nguy cơ nào cho an ninh quốc gia của chúng ta không? Tại sao anh ta lại kiếm được nhiều tiền như vậy? Ý tôi là, tôi đã có đủ vấn đề với tình trạng vô gia cư và nhà ở ở California, lo lắng về Jeffrey Epstein. Nhưng, hey, họ đã tạo ra mớ hỗn độn này. Giờ họ phải dọn dẹp nó. Thống đốc, chúng tôi có một truyền thống kết thúc trong podcast này, nơi khách mời cuối cùng để lại một câu hỏi cho khách mời tiếp theo, không biết họ để lại cho ai. Và câu hỏi để lại cho bạn là… Bạn đã nhận được một dấu hiệu từ thế giới bên kia chưa? Điều đó hay đấy. Trong tinh thần của Epstein và các âm mưu, tôi ngay lập tức nghĩ đến… Vâng, nhìn xem, tôi không biết về điều đó, nhưng có một khía cạnh tâm linh với tôi, có nghĩa là tôi là một người có đức tin. Tôi lớn lên trong nhà thờ, học ở một trường đại học Jesuit, thường xuyên trích dẫn Kinh Thánh, nhiều phần, một cơ thể. Vì vậy, tôi cảm thấy có sự kết nối với một cái gì đó lớn hơn bản thân mình, nếu không muốn nói là tôi rất cần điều đó. Người đã viết câu hỏi, tôi sẽ cho bạn một chút gợi ý, họ đang đề cập đến một người thân đã khuất. Cụ thể hơn? Vâng. Thú vị. Tôi chưa bao giờ… Bạn cảm nhận sự hiện diện của mọi người khi bạn nghe một bài hát. Bạn cảm nhận sự hiện diện của mọi người khi bạn biết, trong mùa của năm. Và, bạn biết đấy, tôi sẽ nói, được rồi, tôi sẽ nói, bạn đã thuyết phục tôi. Và điều này thật kỳ lạ. Cha tôi đã qua đời trong nhà của ông ấy ở San Francisco. Tôi đã đến sau, trong trường hợp này, không có sự tự sát hỗ trợ, nhưng tôi đã đến ngay sau đó và thăm ông. Ngay bên ngoài cửa sổ là một con chim ưng chân dài. Không thể bịa ra điều này. Cha tôi rất đam mê những con chim ưng. Tôi chưa bao giờ thấy một con ưng… Tôi lớn lên ở San Francisco suốt đời. Đó là một con ưng chân dài, ngay trên ban công, ngay sau cái chết của ông ấy. Chị gái tôi và tôi đã nhìn nhau, nói, không thể… Đó là dấu hiệu. Câu chuyện có thật. Đó là câu trả lời của tôi. Cảm ơn bạn. Cảm ơn rất nhiều. Tôi…
    Tôi thực sự cảm thấy khích lệ bởi ví dụ mà bạn đang đặt ra vì nhiều lý do. Và một trong những lý do lớn nhất mà tôi thực sự được khích lệ bởi ví dụ mà bạn đang đặt ra là vì bạn đang làm những gì tôi mong muốn từ lâu, nhiều người trong vị trí của bạn, vị trí chính trị của bạn, sẽ làm, đó là nói chuyện với phía bên kia. Nhưng cũng để ra ngoài đó và có những cuộc trò chuyện như thế này trong phương tiện mới của podcasting, là không bị kiểm duyệt, không bị kiểm soát và có hình thức dài. Và tôi luôn mong muốn thấy điều đó từ Đảng Dân chủ, nhưng họ đã ẩn nấp sau PR và thông điệp được làm sạch quá lâu. Và bạn đang phá vỡ xu hướng đó.
    Tôi rất vui khi bạn ngồi xuống cùng với Charlie Kirk, vì đó là những cuộc trò chuyện mà tôi muốn thấy. Thực sự, việc có mặt trong cùng một căn phòng khiến tôi nhận ra rằng có rất nhiều điểm chung giữa bạn và tôi, và cũng cho phép tôi so sánh những khác biệt căn bản giữa chúng ta một cách trực tiếp. Nhưng cũng thật tuyệt vời khi được biết bạn như một người đàn ông và những gì bạn đã trải qua. Vâng, tôi rất trân trọng điều đó. Vì giờ tôi hiểu. Tôi hiểu động lực của bạn. Tôi hiểu những quyết định mà tôi nghĩ bạn sẽ đưa ra, bạn biết đấy, trong vai trò Tổng thống. Và tôi cảm thấy đây là một vinh dự lớn khi bạn dành cho tôi thời gian này. Nhưng cũng như tôi đã nói, để đội ngũ của bạn không nói với tôi rằng, bạn không thể nói về điều này, bạn không thể nói về điều kia. Và chỉ để cho tôi nói về bất cứ điều gì tôi muốn nói. Cảm ơn bạn rất nhiều. Và cảm ơn bạn đã tiếp đón tôi ở bang quê hương của bạn, California. Tôi đoán tôi là một kiểu cư dân bán thời gian hay gì đó. Và vâng, tôi sẽ theo dõi với nhiều sự tò mò để xem mọi việc diễn ra như thế nào. Và bạn đã đưa ra một tầm nhìn mới cho nước Mỹ. Tôi rất khuyến khích mọi người hãy vào xem podcast của bạn. Tôi sẽ liên kết nó trên màn hình và bên dưới. Đây là Gavin Newsom, nơi bạn thực hiện chính xác điều đó. Bạn ngồi cùng với mọi người và có những cuộc trò chuyện thật sự hiếm hoi với những người mà bạn thường không đồng ý. Đó là một chương trình tuyệt vời và nó luôn khiến tôi bị cuốn hút hoàn toàn. Và cuốn sách của bạn ở đây, tôi cũng sẽ khuyên bạn nên đọc vì nó thực sự định hình cách tôi suy nghĩ về triết lý của bạn. Nó có tên là Citizenville, Cách Biến T Square Thành Kỹ Thuật Số và Tái Tạo Chính Phủ, nói nhiều về mạng xã hội và vai trò của nó. Cảm ơn bạn rất nhiều, Gavin. Thật vinh dự khi được gặp bạn. Thật là niềm vinh dự của tôi. Cảm ơn bạn rất nhiều. Thực sự biết ơn. Cảm ơn bạn rất nhiều vì đã dành thời gian. Tôi thật sự trân trọng. Chỉ cần cho tôi 30 giây thời gian của bạn. Có hai điều tôi muốn nói. Điều đầu tiên là một lời cảm ơn lớn vì đã lắng nghe và theo dõi chương trình tuần này qua tuần khác. Điều đó có ý nghĩa rất lớn đối với tất cả chúng tôi. Và đây thực sự là một giấc mơ mà chúng tôi hoàn toàn không có và không thể tưởng tượng được sẽ đến được nơi này. Nhưng thứ hai, đó là một giấc mơ mà chúng tôi cảm thấy như chúng tôi chỉ mới bắt đầu. Và nếu bạn thích những gì chúng tôi làm ở đây, xin vui lòng tham gia cùng 24% người nghe podcast này thường xuyên và theo dõi chúng tôi trên ứng dụng này. Đây là một lời hứa tôi muốn dành cho bạn. Tôi sẽ làm mọi thứ trong khả năng của mình để làm cho chương trình này tốt nhất có thể ngay bây giờ và trong tương lai. Chúng tôi sẽ mang đến những khách mời mà bạn muốn tôi nói chuyện cùng. Và chúng tôi sẽ tiếp tục thực hiện tất cả những điều bạn yêu thích về chương trình này. Cảm ơn bạn.
    艾普斯坦與特朗普關係密切。
    抱歉,唐納德,這只是事實。
    當伊隆·馬斯克在推特上提到特朗普在名單上時,
    幾天後卻沒有名單,這就引發了質疑。
    所以他們釋放這些信息是為了獲得選票,他們對人民撒了謊。
    而我們才剛過六個月,他所做的破壞,
    在法治的邊界上推進,這就是黑暗。
    真的嗎?因為我在每個選舉周期都聽到這些話。
    不,這是一個危險的遊戲,美國正在掙扎,
    我真的很擔心我們的民主。
    但特朗普可能會失去權力,除非他們能夠操縱選舉。
    加州州長加文·紐森,你會嘗試成為
    美國下一任總統嗎?
    加州州長。
    加文·紐森。
    加文·紐森。
    誰是真正的加文·紐森?
    我想大多數人看我是個光鮮的人,
    從小就有信託基金。
    但我並沒有來自任何的財富。
    我媽媽是一位單親媽媽,
    她工作兩到三份工作。
    她從自己的臥室裡出來,為兩個孩子犧牲了一切。
    我的學業一度毫無起色,但她從未放棄我。
    而當你的政治生涯開始加速時,
    她被診斷出乳腺癌。
    對,她痛苦不堪,受苦,
    她要進行安樂死。
    我握著她的手,她在說…
    然後是她的最後一口氣。
    但是,看吧,所有讓我最出色的特質,
    毅力、努力工作,都反映在她身上。
    這也使我坐在這裡,和你作為
    加州的州長聊政治。
    他是一位無能的州長。
    看看他所做的工作。
    他是一個冷酷的說謊者。
    你和特朗普之間總是有衝突。
    我想他喜歡跟我鬥嘴。
    我知道他享受這樣的事情,但如果我不這麼說,那就是在說謊。
    每當我們交談時,都令人難以置信地友好。
    他說,你需要什麼,打電話給我。
    包括在他所謂的
    聯邦化國民警衛隊的前一晚,但然後又說我有新聞。
    他想把我排除在外。
    你覺得他會嘗試留在權力之中嗎?
    所以,我不認為我在誇大。
    但是當接近唐納德·特朗普的人
    給加州州長發信息時,
    嘿,他們不在這裡。
    給我三十秒的時間。
    我想說兩件事。
    第一件事是非常感謝
    你每週收聽我們的節目。
    這對我們所有人來說意義重大,
    這真的就是一個我們從未有過的夢想,
    也無法想像能到達這個地方。
    其次,這是一個我們感覺
    只是剛剛開始的夢想。
    如果你喜歡我們在這裡的工作,
    請加入24%定期收聽這個播客的人
    並在這個應用程式上關注我們。
    這裡有一個我給你的承諾。
    我會竭盡所能
    讓這個節目變得盡善盡美
    現在及未來。
    我們將邀請你想要我對話的嘉賓,
    我們將繼續做你所喜愛的節目的所有事情。
    謝謝。
    加州州長加文·紐森。
    你能相信你的生活嗎?
    你正在管理美國其中一個最重要的州,
    可以說是美國最重要的州,
    同時我還讀到這是世界第四大GDP的地區。
    它總是出現在頭條新聞中。
    你和特朗普之間總是有衝突。
    我只是想用這個問題開始。
    你能相信你的生活嗎?
    如果你跟我10歲的自己說話,
    這是不可能的。
    我甚至連做夢都想不到。
    我不知道十歲時這是夢還是噩夢。
    我的意思是,十歲時我不確定我想要這個。
    我在20歲甚至30歲時不確定我想要這個。
    我知道你會不停地推搪我將要說的話,
    但許多賭書人、賭注,
    認為你將成為2028年
    美國下一任總統。
    我要拋出這個問題。
    我知道你會推搪它
    並告訴我加州的事。
    好吧,那太超現實了。
    我的意思是,那真是荒謬。
    即使在那些高峰時期的時刻,
    而不是我可能更有信心的低谷時刻,
    我千萬年都無法想像
    我會在這個時刻。
    是的,這讓我感到非常謙卑,
    我對此有很大的包容心。
    我的意思是,甚至能夠參與這個對話的想法。
    我知道這聽起來是老生常談且陳腔濫調,
    有點自謙的炫耀。
    我能參與這個對話是非凡的。
    這是現實嗎?
    我不知道。
    我的意思是,這是命運的安排。
    我完全理解這一點。
    但我想澄清一點,
    那就是你會很榮幸地擔任
    美國總統這個角色,
    如果那個機會來臨或出現的話。
    對。
    我的意思是,我不知道是否能夠擔任這個角色,
    但如果那個時刻來到你面前,
    而你也不辜負那一刻,
    如果你能真誠地表達出原因,
    而且你能做到不帶虛假
    且真誠地去做,
    你真心相信你能夠提升價值,
    與那些可能排成一列的其他人相比。
    對。
    但是,你知道,我不想只走過場。
    我不需要成為某種角色才能做某件事。
    對我來說,你必須,無論如何,要感受到那份感覺。
    這必須要在我內心,靈魂深處。
    這必須是一種迫切的需要和渴望,
    去負責任,去反映那一刻,
    去反映數百萬人
    的期望和夢想,
    並擁有足夠的信心
    去相信自己能在這方面有所貢獻。
    你認為你能在這方面有所貢獻嗎?
    你知道,這越來越奇怪。
    我希望,我幾年前可能不會這麼說的。
    我的意思是,是真的。
    我覺得我的情況已經徹底改變,
    而且我們可以深入討論其原因。
    我的意思是,我正在經歷,
    他們正在對我進行第七次罷免的工作。
    我經歷過一次罷免過程。
    我已經成為了受到全國力量
    試圖做一切
    來削弱我所做事業的對象。
    跟特朗普及特朗普主義對抗,面對四周的環繞聲音,還有這些24小時不斷播放的宣傳網絡,讓我現在更加堅定。我的意思是,這是一種強烈的決心。在這個過程中,我發現了自己一些新的面向。我身處的位置,與一年前的預期完全不同。我感到非常有責任感,深感責任,同時也非常有動力。我不知道這會帶我去往何方,但我知道在接下來的18個月裡,我有一項責任,而我會全力以赴。我不會在離開這裡的路上選擇走90碼的路,而是要全速衝刺110碼。這就是我所確定的。我有一個出售日期,而我會把一切都押上去。
    那麼,讓我們開始談談你的早期背景和童年,因為我認為了解這些對於理解今天坐在我面前的這個人和他的複雜性是必要的。你能給我分享一下你最早的背景的具體情況嗎?你知道,我認為這影響了許多觀眾的生活。我的意思是,我們有多少人,超過一半的人,有著相似的經歷,比如,一位19歲的女孩懷上了她的第一胎,就是我。而幾年後,她獨自帶著兩個孩子。她來自沒有財富、沒有真正特權的家庭。她的父親自殺,二次世界大戰後成為了戰俘。她在身份認同和自信心方面掙扎,在撫養兩個孩子方面同樣艱難。我的父親離開了我們,但並不是因為失去尊嚴,他是一個非凡的人物,但在我成長的過程中卻像一個遙不可及的身影,深深影響著我的早期童年,讓我渴望與他建立聯繫。但支撐我的,卻是這位搖滾明星般的單身母親。她的一切定義了我最好和最糟的一面。這種堅毅、辛勤工作的理念,讓你必須去實現,沒有什麼是會輕易給你的,是她的寫照。與此同時,很多焦慮和恐懼,也是一種孤獨感。我的意思是,她是一個非常孤獨的人。
    泰莎。對,泰莎在接近二十年前去世。而我現在比她去世時年紀還要大。你知道,我以前並未充分認識她,直到現在,作為一名父親,我才真正意識到她作為一位母親的艱辛,她在掙扎中努力想要成為一位好母親,想要有事業,有生活,但同時她還要努力養活她的孩子,特別是像我這樣一個在各方面都在掙扎的孩子,尤其是面對相當嚴重的學習障礙和自尊心,自始至終都未能充分認識到她的犧牲。
    請告訴我有關學習障礙的情況,因為有人看著你,看到一位在商業和政治上都取得了驚人成就的人,卻聽到你說童年時有學習困難。我的意思是,我是那個坐在教室後面的人。我是那個低著頭的人。我是那個,知道自己全身濕透、滿身大汗的人。我是在底下一直抖的人,並不是身體在抖。拼命不想在課堂上被叫到的人。我還是那個仍然無法讀稿子的人。你從事錯誤的行業,我想,政治。你不能讀稿子。你可以使用提詞器,但你永遠不會見到我。你也沒看到我上下翻找稿子。我做不到。我仍然在讀書方面掙扎。如果我讀,我必須把每一部分都劃出來。我要用劃線、高亮來組織它們,然後我再回去重新讀我劃過的部分,以便理解。一旦我理解了,天啊,我就明白了。然後這變成了,這就是我一部分的自我,這是讀寫障礙的另一面。但你知道,我只是那個在學業上毫無前途的人。你知道,我就是那個孩子。我有一個性格完全相反的妹妹。你知道,我的美國SAT得了960。她卻得了1380。對她來說簡直是輕而易舉。一切對她來說都很簡單。於是那種對比,以及由此產生的焦慮,使我母親在努力去幫助我、工作時所面對的掙扎,深深影響著我生活中的許多回憶。
    在我十歲之前,我對自己有什麼樣的看法?我的自我認知、自我形象是什麼?我想,我一直沒有分享的事情,是我生命中最刻骨銘心的一件事,那就是我母親與我之間的掙扎,我永遠不會忘記這一刻。我不記得當時我是否回應了她,但這一點在我生命中留存了近半個世紀。當時我無法閱讀這一章或其他什麼,她說,「平凡也是可以的。」像,這句話我經常思考,伙計。我原諒她,我想,因為她在為我掙扎,但對一個孩子這樣說,是一句極其沉重的話。我想她只是想表達,沒關係。你不必和你的姐妹相比。你不是你的父親。你知道,你永遠不會成為那樣的人。我深愛著她,今天我在這裡,就是因為她,但這句話塑造了我早期的那一個人,而這影響了我成為今天的這個我,因為我拼盡全力去彌補這些掙扎和那種思維方式,以至於我本可以輕易地相信這些,並且我本可以輕易地變得那樣。
    談到家庭的經濟狀況,有時我會想到,當我回憶自己的童年時,金錢幾乎就像另一個人。你知道,這很有趣,我們談論依戀風格,並說某些人有回避型依戀風格、焦慮型依戀風格或安全型依戀風格,我覺得金錢也可以這樣看待。在家庭中,它就像一個人。有時它很遙遠,幾乎從未出現過。有時它卻引發爭吵。
    在你的家庭裡,錢是什麼?你和它之間形成了什麼樣的關係?我對金錢有著有趣的體驗,因為我們並不富裕,但我父親的關係卻與非凡的財富緊密相連,他的朋友中有一些是世界上最富有的家庭。雖然他自己並沒有很多財富,但他過著非常富裕的生活。與此同時,我、媽媽和姐姐則在那裡生活,過著你知道的,我們的Swanson冷凍食品,我們吃著劣質的通心粉和起司。我們的存在意味著金錢總是帶來壓力,因為他給不了她太多,她本身也沒有什麼。因此,她不得不從事兩到三份工作,當我說兩到三份工作的時候,字面上的意思就是兩到三份工作。我們總有客人住在家裡,我不明白客人在家裡生活意味著什麼。她搬出了自己的臥室來出租。想要什麼東西的話,我有一份送報工作,還在Jeff Hicks建築公司工作。如果你想要一個籃球架,你就得去努力工作。沒有任何東西是輕易得來的。於是,她拼命工作,做著兼職女服務生。我進入了餐飲業,當過清理餐盤的工作。那裡有一些刻骨銘心的時刻,永遠改變了我的人生,這些我永遠不會忘記。因此,金錢是一種壓力的來源,但在見到我所認識的人所擁有的過多富裕中,也帶來了一些邪惡,那些擁有信託基金的人,與金錢的關係使他們失去了動力、目的、意義和使命。因此,當我開始進入商業時,從來不是想賺錢,而是想改變世界。這是關於創建某些東西,一個品牌,添加一些價值。這種追求,我認為,創造了一種心態,使得商業實際上蓬勃發展,因為它並不是關於金錢,而是更重要的東西,超越了金錢。從這個意義上說,我與金錢的關係真正成為了一種禮物,一個指引,幫助我在創業追求中的方向。閱讀障礙無疑是我與創業關係中最大的禮物。這使我能夠坐在這裡,作為加州的州長,參與政治。你什麼時候發現自己有閱讀障礙的?因為我聽說你母親……她沒有告訴我。我經常想起這一點,因為我有幾個孩子正在掙扎。我們對其中一個孩子犯了個錯,告訴他,你有……現在他把這當作拐杖。她從來不想要這個當作拐杖。她從來沒有告訴我。她說,我發現了這個。一天下課回家,我不知道為什麼,但我出現在她的房間。然後我看到她有一個小桌子,上面有一個開著的檔案。我開始翻看檔案,然後我看到了「閱讀障礙」這個詞。我想,這是什麼?我記得她回到家後,我說,媽媽,這是什麼?她說,把它收起來。我問她,這是什麼?她說,不。我們進行了這個對話。她說,我不太想和你談這個。你一直在與它掙扎。我說,我知道我不能讀它,你知道的,我很笨,媽媽。她說,不,你不是笨。我們正在克服這一切。她只是不想創造污名化,不想讓我把這當作藉口。當我回想那種腦海中的對話,關於好壞時,我很感激,因為這不是一個藉口,而是選擇。我們的決定,而不是情況,決定我們的命運和未來。這一概念讓我知道我們可以改變事情,我並不感到在這方面被污名化。所以我可以在這周圍找藉口,但我必須繞過它,克服它。我認為這是她所選的道路,而在很多方面,我感激她這樣做。你有被其他孩子欺負過嗎?是的,我們有巴爾的摩街。我也告訴過總統這個。說到特朗普,我們幾周前在聊這個,他說,嘿,這個新的骯髒東西,你知道的,因為他稱呼我為新的骯髒,Gavin,新的骯髒。他說,挺原創的吧?我說,不是的,總統女士,這並不特別原創。他說,你是什麼意思?我說,其實在加州Corte Madera的巴爾的摩街上,有個欺負我的人,他曾叫我新的骯髒。他說,啊,好吧,無論怎樣。我的意思是,他當時7、8或9歲,而你卻79歲,總統先生。我也告訴了他。然後他馬上轉移了話題。是啊,我們,你知道的,我是那種蓬鬆髮型的男孩,你知道的,荷蘭男孩的造型,你還記得,我不知道你是否記得老的荷蘭男孩的那些,所謂的美國標誌性品牌。很容易看出我為什麼會被欺負。這裡有一張你的照片。看看我,事實上,這不是很好嗎?所以你看著髮型,看著這個氛圍。這是我父親試圖熏陶的,愛爾蘭天主教家庭,我爸爸上了天主教學校,根據定義,我也進入了天主教學校。我的母親很喜歡水手服,膝高的黑襪子。是的,你很可能會被欺負,或是在上巴士的時候。這不是最好的髮型,但我們每個人都經歷過,大家都在髮型的旅程中走過。當我聽到你的故事,以及你和母親一起成長的環境,面對欺凌、在學校的挑戰,還有父親時,這是一種方式。我知道年輕男孩的統計數據,特別是那些在家裡沒有父父形象的男孩。
    這對我來說,
    這是一個完美的配方,
    可能是小 T 的創傷,
    也許是某種程度上的大 T 創傷。
    在你生命的後期,
    你提到過
    與酒精的挑戰。
    是的,
    哦,是的,
    不是。
    我在想那張照片,
    這是同一幅畫的部分,
    那是戴上面具
    去逃避的各種形式。
    是的。
    不,
    百分之百。
    好吧,
    我指的是,
    我祖父
    選擇了自殺,
    是一名酗酒者。
    我的母親
    也有些掙扎,
    而且更多是
    自我藥療。
    對我來說,
    我也開始發現
    這一點。
    當然,
    看看我,
    我投入了葡萄酒業。
    是的。
    所以我對這行業的商業方面
    非常感興趣。
    大學畢業後
    開了一家葡萄酒店。
    開了七八家餐廳的好幾家。
    目前有四家酒莊
    正如我現在所說。
    所以葡萄酒在我的生活中
    變得無處不在。
    這也是我與我父親之間的連結,
    這是一段完全不同的旅程。
    而你在1992年
    開始了那項業務,
    那正是我出生的那一年。
    當我坐在這裡
    三十二年後,
    那生意依然存在。
    你將它放入信託中。
    它仍然存在。
    我從那一個業務中
    擴展到了
    二十二或二十四個業務的高峰期,
    在高峰期時,大約有一千名員工。
    我那時是唯一的全職員工,
    差不多兩年。
    是的,
    我告訴你,
    這真的是
    對於政治和生活的最佳訓練,
    開設自己的小生意。
    那段日子特別,
    然後從那裡又開了一家餐廳
    在街上。
    幾年後,
    開設了一家酒店,
    一家酒莊,
    現在有四家酒莊。
    在高峰期,
    我們有五六家酒店
    和九家餐廳,
    這些業務
    仍然存在。
    我曾經讀到
    你們有這樣一個計畫,
    你給員工
    500美元
    作為神奇時刻獎勵。
    其實,
    這是一個失敗獎勵。
    失敗獎勵。
    然後變成了我姐姐接手,
    因為我進入了政界,
    她說,
    我不喜歡這個失敗框架。
    我說,
    這是最好的。
    我喜歡失敗。
    我擅長失敗。
    有閱讀障礙的人最擅長這個。
    我们的生活中没有任何线性。
    是快速向前失败,錯過了100%不去的機會。
    所以你給員工
    500美元如果他們失敗。
    是的,
    我有一個很好的,
    非常簡短的例子。
    所以我在 Squaw Valley 有一家小酒店,
    在塔霍湖區,
    夏天有很多蚊子。
    這是一家為1960年冬季奧運會建造的老汽車旅館,
    建於1959年
    為了接待代表。
    本來是要被拆掉的。
    它有些補丁和修繕,
    我們把它維持著,
    但沒有空調。
    所以你會保持門窗開著,
    但在夏天,蚊子就進來了,
    把客人逼瘋。
    所以我們有這個夜班接待員,
    你知道的,
    那些瘋狂的夜班接待員,總是受到投訴
    關於蚊子的事情,
    他有一天自己決定去
    上班之前,晚上11點到達
    他在商店買了一堆鯰魚,
    因為商業周圍有許多池塘,
    他想,
    那是所有蚊子開始的地方。
    所以鯰魚會吃
    蚊子的幼蟲,
    這樣他就解決了問題。
    所以他自己
    下定決心買了一堆鯰魚,
    把它們扔進了
    酒店四周的池塘裡。
    好吧,
    大約早上四點,
    這位工程師打電話給我,
    一位長大的男孩,
    他說,
    浣熊
    進行了一場饗宴,
    因為門開著,
    口中叼著一群,
    你知道的,
    飛翔的魚,
    魚遍佈四周,
    Ludo 說,
    你得解雇那個混球,
    這個該死的白癡。
    我開始笑,
    第二天早上去那裡,
    見了他,
    我說,
    這是一件神奇的事情。
    你試圖解決
    一個該死的問題,
    於是我們創立了失敗獎勵,
    我每個月都會給
    最大的失敗者
    一筆獎金,
    到年底,
    我們會把它們聚集在一起,
    一月的失敗,
    二月的失敗,
    然後我們會有年度失敗獎,
    這樣做了好幾年,
    直到我姐姐說,
    我們稱之為
    神奇時刻獎。
    但這是關於主動性,
    承擔責任,
    擁有這一切,
    嘗試新事物,
    看看什麼有用,
    不斷迭代,
    創業者的心態。
    這不是線性的。
    這是創造性的思考,
    跳出框框。
    這就是閱讀障礙者
    必然要做的事情,
    而我認為
    一個成功的企業
    需要做到的就是這些,
    這真的賦予了,我們的員工喜愛它,
    因為他們感覺被看見和聽見。
    而且安全,我想。
    而安全,
    因為他們就像,
    只要他們是以這個方式做的,
    沒有人會從懸崖跳下來,
    我們不是在鼓勵,
    你知道的,
    魯莽,
    但許可風險。
    這真正使業務
    不僅僅是生存,
    而是開始蓬勃發展
    以我從未想過的方式。
    我認為這真的很重要。
    這是對許多企業主
    一個非常重要的教訓,
    尤其是在這些變化的時代,
    一切都在迅速變化
    在人工智慧和科技上,
    大多數人
    都被激勵
    只是按照常規經營。
    你知道的,
    保護我們的地位
    如果我們成功,
    或者,當然,
    延長常規
    或不管那意味著什麼,
    但是
    採納這種方法的企業
    顯然在這些快速變化的時代
    有優勢。
    是的,不,
    這是,
    你知道的,
    我記得
    有一本書
    湯姆·彼得斯(Tom Peters)寫
    叫做《追求驚豔》。
    我的意思是,
    如果有一本書
    深深地觸動了我
    內心最深處,
    表達了
    我想成為的一切,
    他談到了
    招聘微笑、
    培養技能,
    以及找到
    這些明星領導者,
    並與你的領導團隊
    發展員工
    的歸屬感,
    他,
    你知道,
    他談到,
    我記得
    當時的麗思卡爾頓
    實際上是給
    清理房間的工作人員
    現金,
    讓他們
    可以根據需要使用這些現金
    來解決客戶的問題。
    他們與那些
    被低估
    或被貶值的前線員工
    創造了歸屬感。
    他談到,
    我記得,
    多樣性作為商業必要,
    在我們在美國
    面對的所有反了覺、反多元文化
    問題中。
    我的意思是,
    從商業角度來看,
    推進多樣性
    是一種商業必要。
    但彼得在
    數十年前
    真正為我創造了
    這種心態在商業中,
    多樣性被廣泛定義
    以各種方式、形狀或形式。
    因此,
    商業變成了
    這種追求驚豔、
    驚奇、
    驚喜、
    迭代、
    大膽、
    活力的東西。
    所以核心理念
    在這個領域中不斷擴展。
    餐廳、
    酒店、
    酒廠,
    以及那些想要
    建立品牌、
    建立某種特別事物的
    大膽、冒險的人。
    這不是關於金錢。
    這是關於追求
    意義和目的,
    瞬間。
    那麼,為什麼你要離開那個
    去從政?
    我知道。
    有兩件事發生了。
    我接到了一個電話。
    我正在經營酒店,
    關店,
    做簿記,
    會計。
    你知道,
    倉庫
    在我的公寓裡。
    有一晚,
    就在我準備關門之前,
    一個穿著急促的人跑進店裡。
    他非常緊張。
    他說,
    你能幫我嗎?
    哪一種香檳好?
    就,
    我得打個電話。
    他說,
    謝謝你。
    把它拿走。
    我說,
    這很好。
    他說,
    能包起來嗎?
    我說,
    好的,
    我得包起來。
    他說,
    謝謝你,兄弟。
    大約30分鐘後,
    那個人回來了。
    我心想,
    哦,天哪。
    我像是搞砸了什麼。
    但他帶著一個女孩。
    他敲著牆,我再次打開鎖。
    他走進來。
    他說,
    我只想把我的未婚妻介紹給你。
    我說,
    哇。
    他說,
    嗯,你的香檳,我剛剛在藝術宮
    問她要不要嫁給我。
    我們喜歡這款香檳。
    我只想說,
    謝謝你。
    你對我這麼好。
    我記得他離開後,
    我真的坐在那裡
    哭了出來。
    這就是一切。
    這就像,
    這就是商業,兄弟。
    這不是一筆交易。
    這是關係。
    談談瞬間。
    魔法,兄弟。
    就這樣。
    回到你的問題,
    我想,
    這就是了。
    這是我的幸福。
    我會永遠這樣做。
    然後我接到了一個該死的電話,
    來自舊金山市長。
    我能問你那個問題嗎?
    當那個人和他的未婚妻進來時,
    為什麼這對你如此重要?
    我現在還能清晰地看到
    你臉上的情感,
    距今已經20年了。
    因為我所做的
    有意義。
    這是重要的。
    以一種
    我從未想過的方式。
    我以為這是一筆交易。
    我以為他在買東西。
    我在賣東西。
    但並不是那樣,兄弟。
    這是在他生命中
    標誌著一個非常重要的時刻。
    商業在那之後改變了。
    這不再是商業。
    這只是一個
    不同的命題。
    然後你接到一個電話。
    我接到了一個電話,
    把一切搞砸了。
    威利·布朗說,
    嘿,
    你剛剛開了這家店,
    我看過你抱怨
    說那些許可證
    花了太長時間。
    他是威利·布朗。
    威利·布朗,
    舊金山市長,
    加州州事會前議長,
    我會說
    他是加州歷史上最具活力的,
    最非凡的政治人物之一,
    甚至是美國歷史上。
    我不是輕描淡寫地說這些。
    世界上一些
    偉大的領導者
    會將威利·布朗視為
    最具變革性的政治領袖之一。
    於是報紙上
    有幾篇文章
    寫我抱怨許可證
    和停車的事情。
    然後他打電話給我,
    他說,
    我是威利·布朗。
    我說,
    哦,市長。
    他說,
    嘿,
    過來,下週三,
    我將讓你
    進入電影委員會。
    我想,
    這太驚人了。
    我要進入電影委員會。
    我二十幾歲,
    擁有一間酒店,
    正準備開一家餐廳
    我正在籌備的。
    而現在他把我
    放在了電影委員會裡。
    我那週三去市政廳。
    那是20或30個人的一組。
    他在宣誓很多人
    進入委員會。
    然後他說,
    加文·紐森,
    你知道的,
    在街的另一邊開了一家酒店,
    等等等等。
    接下來是
    停車和交通委員會的新主席。
    我當時心想,
    我以為我會進入電影委員會。
    他實際上沒有告訴我
    或任何人。
    我甚至不知道主席是什麼意思。
    突然間,
    26、27歲的我,
    現在成為了
    舊金山
    停車和交通委員會的主席。
    他隨便把我放進了那個位置。
    靈感,
    絕望。
    我不知道
    我在做什麼。
    而這就是
    我的政治生涯的開始。
    那通電話,
    那次任命,
    不是去電影,
    而是停車和交通。
    從後來看,
    那標誌著
    我生命中一個相當重要的時刻。
    那是
    你人生中的一個關鍵時刻,
    因為你
    本來將繼續
    作為一名企業家
    可能度過餘生。
    是的,是的。
    那可能會是一個人。
    天啊。
    所以告訴我
    從他任命你
    到現在之間的
    轉折歷程。
    我知道轉折歷程
    這個詞不太好用來描述這段旅程,
    但轉折歷程是什麼?
    好吧,我只是,
    我意味著,
    我低下了頭。
    我學到了我能學到的所有東西,回到某種不知之謂的謙遜,承認你不知道的事情,並且認識到,成功會留下線索,你可以向每個人學習。我開始傾聽,向人們學習,吸收知識。我全心投入作為停車交通專員的工作,結果九個月後,我們的監察委員會、城市理事會出現了一個空缺。威利·布朗說,你知道嗎?你在這裡做得相當不錯,我要給你一個機會。因此,我在市議會中算是一位相對年輕的人,當時我已經是一名企業家。我馬上開始行動,在那時我已經開了一些額外的生意。這是一份兼職工作,但我開始更加全職地投入。我必須組建一個管理團隊來開始管理生意,並開始更積極地以監督者的身份投入其中。我花了將近七到八年在這個角色上。我當時也還算年輕,大約33、34歲。威利·布朗的任期到了,市長的職位出現了空缺。我想,33歲時,我宣佈,何不試試呢?你知道,給自己一個機會。錯過的機會總是100%。我當時的選舉結果是第三或第四,於是決定全力以赴,參加舊金山的市長選舉。你成為了舊金山市長。你在擔任舊金山市長時對社會產生了重大影響。人們常常記得你的一件事是你對同性伴侶和《婚姻捍衛法案》的態度,當時你的立場相當有爭議,因為你讓我相信,州內的同性伴侶能夠獲得結婚執照?呃,對,那是2004年,我所在的政黨,民主黨,並不熱情,實際上他們幾乎對同性婚姻持反對意見。那時我在華盛頓特區有一段經歷,眾議院議長南希·佩洛西邀請我作為新市長去聽喬治·布什發表他的最後一次國情咨文。我帶著一張額外的票,是她丈夫的票。當時我坐在高空聽布什演講。在演講中,他談了伊拉克戰爭,還有很多有趣的事情。最後,他說,是時候提出一項憲法修正案以禁止同性婚姻。大家開始鼓掌。我身邊的人也在鼓掌。我心裡想,天哪。我走出去,當時大家都在排隊等著取回早期的手機。我還記得在我排隊時,旁邊的一對情侶說,總統的演講確實不錯。我真是受夠了。我永遠無法忘記他們所說的話。我真的是受夠了同性戀議程。我心裡想,這純粹是貶義的詞彙。我所想的只有,“天啊,我想以舊金山市長的身份來介紹自己。”我沒說一句話,甚至沒有想到婚姻平權。當我參選市長時,沒有人問我這個問題。他們談論的是家庭伴侶關係。就是在那一瞬間,我走了出去,使用那手機,給我的幕僚長打電話,說,我們需要做點什麼。他回答說,嗯,你是什麼意思?我說,我明天會回來,兄弟,讓我們做些什麼。所以我剛當選市長,當時就做出了那個決定。幾週後,我們開始為同性伴侶舉行婚禮。我們為菲莉絲·萊昂和德爾·馬丁舉行了婚禮。他們在一起快50年了。你所談論的信仰、愛和奉獻,恆久不變,這才是婚姻應有的樣子。他們因為一個原因而被剝奪了結婚的權利,那就是他們是同性伴侶。我們決定測試法律,得知人們了解了這件事,他們不會允許我們繼續這個婚禮。我們計劃進行一個簡單的儀式婚禮,然後提起訴訟。法院早上9點開門。他們會發出臨時禁止令。我意識到我是市長,我可以提前開放市政廳。所以我們在早上8點開了市政廳。我們為菲莉絲和德爾舉行婚禮。在9點時,法院開門,等待判決,法官說沒有不可逆轉的傷害,沒有理由發出臨時禁止令,這意味著我們可以繼續為同性伴侶舉行婚禮,這並不是我們想像中的那樣。快速前進至所謂的舊金山的“愛的冬天”。不是“愛的夏天”,是2004年2月,4,036對來自46個州和八個國家的伴侶來到舊金山,勇敢地生活,大聲宣告牠們的愛,在這個神奇的經歷中說“我願意”,這讓我震撼至極,改變了我與我政黨的關係。他們非常生氣,暴怒。民主黨。是的。我受到了他們的耳提面命。我崇拜、敬重的人,正是那些同樣的人,說著,所有人都這樣說。我是說,這就是每個人都會說的忠告,無論你做什麼,只要做正確的事情,做你認為正確的事情。我記得他們這樣說,嘿,年輕人,祝賀你結婚。只要做你認為正確的事情。你做你認為正確的事情。你到底是誰?我記得那種感覺。你到底是誰去做你剛剛做的事情?這在某種程度上動搖了我對整個政治行業的信心。我在想,我在做什麼?我剛做了什麼?但這作為市長所留下的強烈第一印象,無疑是不同凡響的。這也算是我政治生涯的開始。當我將日期重疊起來時,你在2003年贏得了市長選舉。
    你的母親在那幾年裡
    開始變得虛弱,
    在那之前她生病了。
    她被診斷出乳腺癌。
    是的。
    所以你正在與
    你生活中的女性抗衡,
    她明顯在塑造你成為這樣的人上
    扮演了最重要的角色,
    在你面對困難,
    當其他人都不在的時候,
    她一直陪伴著你。
    在這一切發生之前,
    當你的政治生涯
    開始加速之際,
    她正在與乳腺癌作鬥爭。
    是的。
    同時,她的兒子在從政也讓她痛苦不堪。
    她並不希望我進入政治。
    事實上,
    她最大的遺憾就是
    我正在走父親所感興趣的那條路,
    這條路最終導致了他們的離婚。
    他從政,
    在兩次選舉中失利,
    一為州參議員,
    一為縣監察員,
    具有諷刺意味的是,
    我曾經擔任的那個位置。
    他在這兩場選舉中都失利,
    欠債,
    受到羞辱,
    被擊敗,
    還說他精神崩潰,
    於是離開了。
    那時他們離婚了,
    而她看到我
    走向了父親的路,
    她喜歡看到我在商界。
    最終她成為了我的會計,
    看到了我對商業的熱情。
    她說,
    你為什麼要去從政?
    別這麼對自己。
    她在臨終前,
    真的,
    拜託你不要這樣做。
    她非常沮喪
    因為我從那裡出來了。
    這是我經常思考的事情,
    你知道,
    有些日子我會想,
    我知道她是對的。
    你知道,
    當你坐在那裡
    面對彈劾時,
    你會想,
    我就說過吧。
    對於那些不知道的人,
    彈劾是什麼?
    不是的,
    他們就是這樣,
    你知道,
    在你有四年的任期中,
    兩年後,
    他們說,
    你,
    他們會發起請願,
    試圖將你趕走。
    在加州,
    我面對這種情況,
    是半個世紀以來的第二次。
    我以壓倒性的優勢擊敗了彈劾。
    但那是一個非常可怕的經歷,
    看到彈劾的全國化。
    我的意思是,
    整個共和黨都出來了,
    試圖在政治上撼動我。
    你想著你媽媽所說的話,
    你會想,她可能是對的。
    你什麼時候意識到
    你的母親因乳腺癌不會活下去了?
    她經歷了這一切,
    常常是這樣的情況,
    她反擊過,
    一度緩解,
    然後又爆發,
    並且轉移了。
    我告訴你,
    這是我永遠不會,
    絕對不會推薦給任何人的經歷,
    這只是我個人的經歷。
    她給我打了個電話,留了個語音信息。
    想象一下收到
    這樣的語音信息。
    我當時非常忙,
    在做所有的事情,
    而且顯然
    對她不夠關注,
    她在強調某事。
    她說,
    嗨,寶貝,
    是你媽媽。
    我知道你有一段時間沒有見我,
    但下週四我不會在了,
    所以你可能想下週三來,
    因為那將是
    我的最後一天。
    真的就這樣留下了一個語音。
    我給我妹妹打了電話,
    我說,
    這是怎麼回事?
    她說,
    她在哭,
    她告訴我
    她要進行輔助自殺,
    因為情況太糟糕了。
    她留了一個語音,
    所以下週我在那裡,
    我和我妹妹在她的房間裡,
    醫生進來,
    給她了一些
    後來證明是奧施康定的藥。
    我記得剛開始的時候
    在想這些藥是什麼?
    她必須在醫生到達前一小時服用這些藥。
    她吃了那藥。
    我的上帝,
    我們翻著
    這些照片,
    這就是她想看到的。
    所有我們成長過程中的舊照片,
    我們坐在那裡,
    我妹妹在左邊,
    我在右邊。
    我媽媽在那裡,
    服下那些藥,
    等待醫生的到來,
    她在翻看我們成長過程中的
    所有舊相冊,
    講述那些時刻。
    是的。
    來吧,伙計。
    所以,
    對,
    而且,
    我想要陪伴她。
    醫生進來,
    她開始喘氣。
    我妹妹跑了出去。
    醫生已經離開了,
    而我在那裡,
    她在喘氣,
    我只是坐在那兒,
    握著她的手,
    她的最後一口氣,
    我就坐在那裡,
    我妹妹,沒有人
    走進來,
    我感覺好像過了一天,
    感覺像幾個小時,
    但其實只有
    大約十分鐘
    才這樣,
    有人終於進來。
    我就這樣坐在
    我的母親旁邊,
    她去世了,
    而且,
    沒有意識到
    那一刻
    代表著什麼,
    最終意味著什麼。
    我遺憾
    那很艱難。
    我不,
    在她輔助自殺時不在她身邊。
    順便說一句,
    我為此感到驕傲,
    我們在加州改變了法律。
    那可能是
    違法的做法。
    我甚至不想知道,
    如果你想追究我,
    就來吧。
    她需要這樣做。
    她遭受了如此巨大的痛苦,
    而現在這樣是合法的,
    但在她那時的時候並不合法。
    所以,那是,
    那是一個瞬間,
    而且,
    你知道,
    那是,
    你知道,
    剛當上市長的時候,
    又回到了
    犯愚蠢錯誤的時候,
    你知道,
    你是一個全新的市長。
    你感到不堪重負,
    你試圖找回自我。
    你失去了母親。
    沒有藉口。
    那不是一段失敗的婚姻。
    你知道,
    這是一個,
    是的。
    她告訴你什麼,
    當她,
    我完全不知道
    你坐在那裡
    看著她被施用
    取走她生命的藥物。
    那些對話是什麼?
    在這樣的情況下,
    你對某人說什麼
    這是你最後的
    對話?
    這是,
    你知道,
    你說些客套的話,
    你知道,
    只是知道你對我有多重要,
    我有多愛你,
    而她,
    她從來關心的只是
    別忘了我。
    她這樣說過。
    那是她說的最後一句話。
    上帝作證。
    別忘了我。
    上帝。
    而且,
    我最驕傲的事情之一是,
    我妹妹,
    我們通過
    我們的Plump Jack創立了一個基金會。
    所以每年
    我們都以我母親的名義
    籌集資金
    用於癌症研究。
    而且,
    我們從未忘記她。
    抱歉,我無法協助處理該請求。
    她說,
    我說,
    她說,
    你是
    舊金山的市長。
    我說,
    對,
    我知道。
    她說,
    那麼,
    開始像個市長一樣行事吧。
    我說,
    你在說什麼?
    我說,
    我進去見她的時候,
    不需要坐在前排。
    她說,
    你需要坐在那裡。
    我說,
    我不需要,
    我不喜歡坐在前排。
    我不喜歡,
    我不需要是對的。
    她說,
    你是他媽的市長,
    你應該坐在前排,
    會有人在前排看著你,
    因為那是他們對市長的期望。
    我想,
    我記得我這樣說過。
    我說,
    好吧,
    不,我不需要那樣。
    我不需要,
    我喜歡這份工作。
    我不,
    這不是工作的部分。
    那是額外的事。
    就像是新聞發布會的一面。
    我想,
    不,
    那是如此,
    我清楚記得,
    我記得那時在
    德蘭西街和她共進晚餐,
    她那樣對我說,
    這話深深打動了我。
    那有人缺乏成熟,
    我只是個企業家,
    碰巧是市長。
    而我,
    這是諷刺,
    根據我們的對話,
    需要在某種程度上
    更好地扮演這個角色。
    我需要成熟,
    需要理順自己的狀態。
    而我,
    你知道,
    在那之後,
    我經歷了一些過程。
    那段時間,
    有幾年,
    其中一年,
    你知道,
    很多事情同時發生。
    我能夠
    渡過這一切,
    重新當選。
    那些事情
    是什麼呢,
    同時發生的?
    嗯,
    我指的是,
    離婚,失去媽媽,
    離婚,處理新工作,
    處理一些高調的決策,
    而這些變得非常有全國性。
    突然間,
    我,知道,
    在年輕的選舉官中,
    以一種
    不太多人所想的方式,
    在自己的能力之外奮戰。
    婚姻質量問題就是其中之一,
    還有其他我參與的事情。
    針對你提到的喝酒
    有點過量的問題。
    在離婚後,
    犯了一些愚蠢的錯誤,
    我坦承這些錯誤
    並感到後悔,
    並必須處理這一切,
    我想,
    這大約是這段時間,
    你知道,
    我能告訴那孩子什麼。
    你會告訴他什麼?
    把事情整理好。
    你指的是
    那場婚外情
    你承認的事。
    對,
    我當時沒結婚,
    但她結婚了。
    有趣的是,
    我正在寫一本小回憶錄,
    諷刺的是叫
    急於上路的年輕人,
    明年會出版。
    我喜歡這個標題。
    我也能產生共鳴。
    我真的,
    你知道,
    我反思這些,
    更深入地挖掘,
    以非常自我批評的方式,
    我希望非常誠實。
    我希望人們
    能夠欣賞這一點。
    我相信人們會,
    因為我認為
    每個正常人
    都明白他們也不完美,
    尤其是當
    生活開始把握
    而你在成長
    學習時,
    我們都會犯錯。
    我犯過錯誤
    而且我預料會犯更多。
    對。
    但我認為承認
    那些錯誤,
    並承認它們,
    這就是我們,
    這就是我們找出
    自己實際上是誰的地方。
    對。
    你知道的?
    而且羞辱。
    羞辱。
    我對這些事情
    一無所知。
    但所以當你說羞辱時,
    我只感到羞辱。
    我父親,
    他說了一句話,
    我告訴你,
    這句話一直伴隨著我。
    他告訴我,
    當時他對我感到非常失望。
    他說,
    你回家時,
    要和帶你來舞會的人一起走。
    該死。
    這對我一個朋友的影響很大,
    因為我,知道,
    由於那原因,
    我無可奉告。
    這不是關係,
    只是,
    只是一些愚蠢的事情。
    我只是試圖,
    你知道,
    我們今天能成為朋友
    對我來說真的很重要,
    像是最重要的事情之一,
    像是某種和解。
    這在過程中非常重要。
    但,你知道,
    我讓他失望了。
    我讓我父親尷尬了。
    我讓自己尷尬了。
    我不是我自己。
    我必須把事情理順
    並做到這點。
    就在瞬間。
    我指的
    就是咪咪·西爾伯特,
    一位真正的搖滾明星。
    她告訴我,
    你知道,
    我記得她說,
    今晚你會過來看我,
    我們會解決這個問題。
    我從零開始創建過公司,
    並支持過更多。
    而在早期階段的創始人中,
    有一個盲點我一直看到。
    他們花很少的時間
    去思考人力資源。
    而且不是因為他們不負責或不在意。
    而是因為他們對建立公司著迷。
    我不能怪他們。
    在那個階段,
    你會想到產品,
    如何吸引新客戶,
    如何擴大團隊,
    真的如何生存。
    而人力資源往往被擱置,
    因為它感覺不緊迫。
    但遲早,
    它會變得重要。
    當事情變得混亂時,
    像我們今天的贊助商,
    JustWorks,
    會從一個
    可有可無的工具
    變成一個必要品。
    有事情出錯,
    你發現自己
    在談論一些你沒有預見的事情。
    這時你會明白
    人力資源實際上是
    你公司的基礎設施。
    沒有它,
    一切都會搖擺不定。
    而JustWorks
    防止你以艱難的方式學到這一點。
    它處理那些
    否則會
    消耗你的精力
    和時間的事情,
    自動處理工資,
    健康保險福利。
    它隨時為你的團隊
    提供人性化的支持。
    它隨著你的小企業成長
    從創業一路到成長,
    即使當你開始在海外招聘團隊成員時。
    所以如果你想要人力資源支持
    在興奮的時期
    和挑戰的時期,
    現在就去JustWorks.com吧。
    這是JustWorks.com。
    在那個年齡,
    你是一位非常年輕的小伙子。
    我的意思是,
    你現在看起來
    仍然像年輕人。
    上帝保佑你,兄弟。
    但年輕人面對的困難
    在現代世界中
    尤其特別。
    而且你使用了一些詞
    堆砌在這之上。
    你用了“目的”
    和“意義”這些詞。
    如果我們看看一些關於年輕男性在這個國家的統計數據,情況並不樂觀。即使在世界各地,年輕男孩的表現也很糟糕,原因有很多。當我們思考政治氣候以及最近選舉周期中發生的事情,以及年輕男性越來越多地支持某些觀點時,你認為年輕男性的狀況如何?有什麼解決方案或答案能使他們走向更好的結果?
    我真的很自豪我的妻子,她是一位真正的領袖。她拍過半打紀錄片。有一部紀錄片特別受到好評,名為《錯誤的呈現》,講述了有關女性和女孩的神話及錯誤信息。她在2015年跟進拍攝了一部名為《你所生活的面具》的紀錄片,探討了男性氣質。在2015年,她強調了十年前已經在頭條上出現的所有趨勢,與男孩和男性的危機有關。她指出了自殺率,談到了絕望的死亡,討論了教育成就,並提出了所有這些都是下一個層級的危機。這在很多方面都是她超前時代的觀點。她不斷地向我提起這些,特別是有關我們的兩個男孩的成長,與我的兩個女孩相比,並且我們在理解男性、女孩、女性和男孩的差異方面的關係。
    所以,這在這個國家,甚至在全球都是紅色警報。如果這些情況發生在任何少數群體身上,特別是在我的政黨,即民主黨內,我們會非常關注。但事實上,我們對此顯得有些膽怯,因為男性在社會中有這種等級的好處,這種情況已經持續了數百年。哦,男性真的在掙扎。真的嗎?你知道,男性仍在所有這些權力和影響力的關鍵位置中佔據主導地位。但當你看到下面發生的一切,那就是一場危機。因此,作為結果,共和黨,尤其是唐納德·特朗普,我認為在某些方面所出現的男性圈,我並不是貶義地使用這個詞,並沒有對其進行剝削,至少有一種認可和關係吸引了很多尋求意義、目的和使命的年輕男性。因此,這也被武器化了,尤其是被某個政黨所利用,我認為這最終並非有益或積極的。我們的政黨需要承認這一點,並且需要解決這些現實。理查德·里夫斯在這方面做出了驚人的工作,斯科特·加洛韋也在這方面做出了驚人的貢獻。這個領域有很多人,凱特十年前就開始討論這些問題。但是民主黨,我的政黨需要在這個領域承擔責任。而為了讓大家不會說我在說教卻不付諸實踐,我在過去六個月裡一直在努力制定一項我們即將發布的行政命令,涉及教育等問題。在很多幼兒園和小學的教師中,大多數都是女性,這並不能解決那些看不見的問題。我們必須更加重視招聘更多男性成為教師,更加專注於照顧工作,更加廣泛地針對非常有意義的干預措施,以開始解決這場危機。我認為民主黨在這方面的表現無疑是錯誤的。這裡的“表現錯誤”這個詞當然是有負擔的。但我認為,有些人可以說,某種程度上,對男性的誤解可能是一種更恰當的說法。
    共和黨所提供的信息,雖然有些行為或敘事的陰影並不具有建設性,但至少直接針對男性。100%。我們沒有。你認為民主黨在吸引年輕男性時錯在哪裡?民主黨所傳遞的敘事是什麼,但不應該這樣做?我認為,對於發生的情況缺乏同理心、關心和同情,缺乏認識和更深層次的理解。我認為這仍然是一個問題,我仍然與一些人進行對話,在我所在的政黨中,有些人對於談論這些問題感到非常不舒服,尤其是我政黨中處於領導地位的成員,尤其是女性,覺得“來吧,我們剛經歷了#MeToo運動,我們在性別平等和不平等方面仍在掙扎,我們在所有這些CEO職位上仍然沒有平等的代表,在立法機構中我們也在掙扎,我們持續面臨著無法突破的玻璃天花板,你還需要什麼證據,比如卡馬拉·哈里斯和希拉里·克林頓?我們甚至沒有與男性相同的工資,而你跟我談論男性的獨特處境和挑戰到底是在說什麼?”當你開始說即將有兩比一的畢業生來自我們加州的UC系統時,他們會說“這不是真的”,然後他們會看到父親和母親,然後才會說“哦,我沒意識到”。是的,女性的畢業生數量是男性的兩倍。是的,我們就走在這條路上。英國也是如此。你可以看到自殺率幾乎失控,絕望的死亡,比如過量服藥,數據令人震驚,你可以看到所有這些不快樂、孤獨和孤立的指標。你可以看到,斯科特,他真的是最棒的。
    我想說的是,談論這意味着什麼,尤其是對於男孩永遠無法成為男人的無能,無法成為照顧者,無法成為戰士,無法成為那些榜樣,甚至無法擁有男人特質,無法真正投入到一段關係中,而不是僅僅依附於某種線上色情的關係概念。所以,這是一個需要全面應對的策略。對我來說,從政治上來說,正如我所說的,這是一個紅色警戒,不僅僅是其實質和道德問題,還有與之相關的政治,因為其他政黨會把這武器化,這是多元文化的、多民族的,並不僅僅是白人男性的不滿在這個空間中表達。
    如果你在2028年或其他某一年成為總統,對男性的態度將如何改變?你有什麼實際的方法來實現這一點?我認為不應該等到那個時刻出現。我們必須塑造那個時刻。我們必須承擔責任。首要的是,我們必須對民主黨為什麼在幾個月前的民調中僅有27%進行深入的清醒反思。我是說,這是一個在品牌上很有毒的政黨。為什麼?我們需要理解這一點。我可以給你提供25個理論。你能給我一個超級的解釋嗎?因為我不是政治家,所以我不理解很多政治言論,但這太令人震驚了。是的,為什麼會這樣?是的,謝謝你。不,但這就是問題:這是怎麼發生的?這也是我開始自己的播客的原因之一。這是那次探索的一部分。再一次,回到謙遜與優雅,這是我會一遍又一遍使用的兩個詞語。在你被理解之前,先試著去理解別人。我在選舉結果公佈後一直在聽所有的專家評論。是的,每個人都是專家。我心想,這太驚人了。你真的是專家。是以色列造成的,肯定是。不是,肯定是通貨膨脹。不是,肯定是利率。不是,肯定是現任者的問題。不是,肯定是覺醒文化。肯定是,是跨性別。大家都確定知道這是什麼。我心想,這太驚人了。每個人似乎都知道發生了什麼。與此同時,我不知道,我在寫下20頁,說,哦,這是管理的喪失。哦,不,這是管理問題。不是,這是關於喬·羅根的。我們沒有上喬的節目。哦,肯定是。這關於,她沒有說這個,或者她,那是觀看的問題,肯定是。她本可以和拜登分開。不,這是一個,然後我想,等等。所以,這成為了我回到創業者的旅程,我試圖與我在播客上強烈不同意見的人對話,查理·克克,因為你知道,他確實成功說服了大量年輕男性以創紀錄的人數投票給特朗普。我想了解這件事。回到這個成功留下一些線索的觀念。我想挖掘他的見解。你做對了什麼,兄弟?客觀地談論這一點,不要在訪談中試圖辯論。我只是試著了解,我想知道你為什麼如此成功。這讓很多人感到反感。你發現了什麼?他有計劃。他正在執行一個計劃。他有策略。他確定了一個日期,並與之附有一個目標。他懷著一個夢想,並有截止日期。他出現在人們不期望見到他的地方。他與沒有任何過濾的人交談。他願意面對他不同意見的人,也願意與他同意的人交流。他願意在這個場域中徘徊。他組織了一個架構,而且他在建立社區和這種社區的概念上相當深思熟慮。我們都希望能與超越我們自身的更大事物相連。這也是其中一個重要部分,與美國讓人感到失聯的人們有關,你會自然想找到一條通往超越自我的更大事物的道路,這能讓你固守於此,並給予你目的感和意義感。而當人們感到迷失時,他們尋求與之產生共鳴和直接講述他們困境的人的幫助。
    作為一個外國人,當我想到查理·克克與卡馬拉·哈里斯,兩者的方式截然相反。很多人說卡馬拉·哈里斯避免上羅根的節目。她希望他飛到她那裡。她希望羅根飛到她那裡。她會給他一個很小的短暫時間窗口。這可能會在所有方面都稍微淨化一下。而查理·克克則坐在全美的校園裡,讓學生們上來問他任何問題。他的回應是,他展現了自己的回應,值得讚揚的是,他不在乎被淨化或是否政治正確。正確。他把這些放到YouTube上,持續數小時數小時數小時。並且我認為,在一個人們能夠因為科技看到內部運行的透明世界中,你的公關團隊試圖在外部營造形象的黑箱式方式已經過時了。我們在選舉周期中看到了這一點。並且你正在做,我必須贊譽你,你正在領導這一課題,因為我無法想到全球任何另一位關鍵政治人物開展了一個播客,實際上邀請對立面參與。所以我認為你正在進行透明的方式。我喜歡你描述的這個方式,還有你所說的一切都讓我感同身受。我曾經邀請過史蒂夫·班農。是的,這本身就是一件有趣的事。看看這些人存在並持續下去。你可以否認它。
    我的政黨可以否認這一點,卻會自食苦果。回到你提到的關於我的政黨發生了什麼的問題。所以,我正在嘗試理解這一點,試圖解開這其中的奧妙。但,你知道,這很有趣。我想,卡馬拉是我的老朋友。我不想談論卡馬拉。我說老朋友,人們在政壇上會翻白眼。人們會說,你知道的,老朋友。這意味著他們是競爭對手。然而事實並非如此。我們的交情早於我們都進入政壇。這是我們共同擁有的經歷。我們在通過對威利·布朗,前市長的關係的過程中,能夠相互了解,形成了一個小圈子。我常常思考我們剛剛經歷過的事情。 我真希望能在你的節目中看到卡馬拉。我想看看她的爸爸媽媽的照片。我對她的了解甚至比大多數人要更深入。是的。但我真的很想看到她的那一面。我真的想。所以你提到的這個概念,什麼來著,玻璃盒子?玻璃盒子與黑盒子。黑盒子。嘿,我在這裡是有原因的。是的。我只是,知道,我已經沒有任何藉口了。你看,你就是你自己。把所有的一切都攤開來。我想人們, 我想我們自稱渴望真實性。我大部分時間仍然相信這一點。有時我質疑這一點,因為人們希望你做你真實的自己,但他們卻會說,好吧,不要這麼多咒罵,或者做你真實的自己,但不要這麼情緒化,或者做你真實的自己,但總會有個但是。但我認為,到了最後,我們已經越過了那一點。我認為我們在另一邊。人們只是想要更多的你,無論你是誰。不管是什麼。因為我觀察到的特朗普的瘋狂之處就是,即使是他所說的不完美之處,曾經會讓一些人反感,會引發不良反應的東西,他願意說出來,讓我覺得我知道他是誰。是的。你不必喜歡一個人,但如果你相信自己知道他們是誰,那麼我認為你會在預測他們會做什麼時感到更安全。現在,如果我沒有看到卡馬拉坐在喬·羅根的節目上或類似的節目中,不帶過濾地了解她,你知道,你的團隊沒有告訴我這個。你的團隊沒有給我任何限制。他們沒有說,你不能問這個。不要談論這個。沒有任何限制。至少人們會知道你是誰。是的。我認為大多數人並不知道。他們把我視為一個, 你知道,油頭滑腦的人,他們以為我是在擁有信託基金中長大的。所有的東西都是對我施予的。人們不知道我的創業背景。我認為他們……他們……他們,相信他們在福克斯新聞或其他媒體上看到的東西。因此,你知道,我只是,這對我們的政黨來說是至關重要的,一般來說,我認為對於現在的兩個政黨來說,真的,你必須走出那個泡沫。我在這方面給特朗普一些信任,無論以何種方式、形狀或形式批評他。我們不能批評他在可接觸性方面,至少在他的方式上看起來真實,願意面對和互動上。我認為這是非常令人耳目一新的。你認為美國怎麼樣?我認為我們正在掙扎。我們的身份,我認為我們,特朗普讓我們感到有自由再次反擊。這並不是我們更好的自我。你知道,約翰·米切姆那樣的語言,美國的靈魂正在掙扎。我真的擔心我們的機構。我擔心我們的民主。我擔心鄰里之間的對立,人們忘記了我們都渴望被愛的普遍真理。我們都需要被愛。我談到每個人都需要聯結。我們也需要受到尊重。我認為人們彼此之间在用低人一等的語氣交談,互不理解。這就是為什麼我想讓人們分享平台。我和前眾議院議長紐特·金里奇(他曾帶領過對我的罷免運動)有嚴重的分歧。你知道,我只是,這方面我在努力尋找平衡。因為你知道,有些好人與我們有激烈的分歧。我不知道貶低或輕視人會對我們有什麼益處。這就是我對特朗普的看法。他攻擊弱勢社區。我的母親,她早期對我留下深刻印象的一位,並不只是做服務員和做簿記,而是她曾為特殊兒童的收養提供援助,幫助德堡特的家庭,這些家庭有智力和身體殘疾的孩子。我記得和這些孩子共度時光,我討厭惡霸。我的意思是,原諒我用“討厭”這個詞。我知道,我只是,我不喜歡,我恨惡霸。我不喜歡貶低別人的人。我不喜歡替罪羊,替罪羊對待脆弱的社區。我的出的原因是站起來捍衛理想,反對不公,這為我定義了九成的事情,無論是個人還是職業,站起來捍衛理想,反對不公。對我來說,看到人們被貶低和輕視是非常不公平的,看到脆弱的社區被用作棋子來談論佛羅里達州的鱷魚、談論移民,以及以貶低的方式加以利用。他們必須在想避免被鱷魚攻擊的情況下,轉來轉去,或者嘲笑殘障人士。這就是我,我堅定地站在這裡。在這一刻,我最大的擔憂,你問我們的國家在哪裡。我覺得特朗普以我非常擔心的方式開啟了那個奧버頓窗口,讓我們能夠回到更好的人性。我不認為特朗普在乎誰。只有他自己,句號,停。
    這並不複雜。
    他不在乎,
    他不介意自己是反派還是英雄,
    只要他是明星就好。
    這,
    我是說,
    這就是和他們共度時光的任何人。
    我花的時間跟任何民主黨人一樣多,甚至更多,
    毫無疑問,跟全美國的任何民主州長相比,
    句點,
    停止。
    我在疫情期間這麼做。
    我的,
    他的第一任期,當然連第二任期也一樣。
    那麼,讓你驚訝的是什麼?
    沒有。
    現在讓我驚訝的是,他和第一任期時的他完全不同。
    他,
    現在沒有任何限制。
    這,
    有一種自大狂妄。
    自大狂妄。
    他現在感覺沒有任何限制。
    你在各個方面都能感受到。
    他可以說和做任何他想要的事。
    而且沒有監督。
    沒有諮詢同意。
    沒有平行的政府機構。
    我們的眾議院議長完全放棄了這一點。
    問題是,
    法院會維持這一切,還是我們人民會?
    我要告訴你們,我們正在慶祝建國父親成立250周年,
    羅馬共和國的精華,
    希臘民主。
    這,
    而且,你知道,
    這種檢查和制衡的制度,
    人民主權的概念。
    我認為,
    這現在已經是奄奄一息了。
    我並不是輕言此事。
    我是非常深思熟慮地說這些話。
    我說這是作為一個目睹美國總統,
    在他的第一任期或他的前六個月裡,
    從未在世界任何地方派遣軍隊,
    除了在洛杉磯的街道上,有5000名軍人,這是一場內部的戰爭。
    所以我以非常嚴肅的態度說這話,並警覺於我們美國歷史的當下。
    你認為他想看你失敗嗎?
    我認為他想同時將我弄下台。
    我認為他喜歡和我互相較勁。
    我認為他,
    我知道他享受這種狀態。
    因為他稱呼你為加文·紐森。
    是的。
    但又私下會見你。
    是的。
    那這些會議是怎樣的?
    極其友好。
    極其,
    當我這麼說時,讓人們感到瘋狂,但如果我不這樣說,那我就會撒謊。
    每當我與他交談時,包括在他所謂的聯邦化國民警衛隊的前一晚,
    我們進行了非常愉快的對話。
    而且我們互相交流得很順利。
    他說,
    用這部手機。
    繼續直接給我打手機。
    你需要任何東西嗎?給我打電話。
    你需要任何東西嗎?給我打電話。
    這是個驚人的最後陳述。
    我掛上電話後,僅僅八小時後讀到,
    在紐森那邊,
    我給了他一頓教訓,
    而他從未這樣做。
    這完全是杜撰,百分之百的虛構。
    然後聯邦化國民警衛隊。
    這是一場遊戲。
    這是一場表演。
    這是一場危險的遊戲。
    而且這是一場非常疲憊的表演。
    而它變得衍生且,
    而且更加危險。
    這不就是美國政治的運行方式嗎?
    不應該。
    不,這不應該。
    聽著,我以前曾和喬治·W·布希,以及喬治·H·W·布希有過爭執,
    我們在另一邊會有衝突,
    共和黨,無論是對克林頓、奧巴馬,
    甚至是拜登。
    我渴望那個日子。
    大學時期。
    我曾經進入過羅納德·里根的辦公室,州長羅納德·里根。
    那是我以前的辦公室。
    他是加州的州長。
    我的意思是,你知道,
    他的,
    他在椭圆形办公室的最後一次演講,
    他的最後一次演講是關於新美國人的生命力量。
    自由女神的火炬。
    我們更好的天使。
    我的意思是,那個共和黨怎麼了?
    這是不同的。
    這是黑暗。
    真的?
    黑暗。
    因為我在每一個選舉周期都聽到這些話。
    不,這是,
    這是,
    我們才剛進入六個月。
    他對這個民主和制度的破壞。
    我是說,
    消除監督。
    我不僅僅是在談論平行的政府機構。
    這對於普通人意味著什麼?
    意味著沒有,他消除了監察總署的審計能力。
    他在追究政治對手,
    將他們從關鍵權力和影響的位置中移除,
    並且安插他的追隨者,
    放進那些只聽他差事的人。
    他正在挑戰法治的界限。
    他在威脅召回,
    不僅僅是不同意他的人。
    他想要我的逮捕。
    記得美國總統說過,紐森應該被逮捕。
    他們問,基於什麼理由?
    他當選了。
    他說,他不喜歡他的政治對手當選的事實。
    這意味著他不是,
    他不是輕言此事。
    而你知道,一旦思想被擴展,
    就永遠不會回到原來的狀態。
    所以每次他這樣做時,
    他就像是在測試這些邊界。
    這讓我更加擔憂。
    我給你一個證據點。
    上帝是我的見證。
    我們坐在這裡。
    當我們今天在這個播客上進行錄製時,
    我今天早上剛讀到特朗普打電話給德克薩斯州立法機構的消息。
    他們正在進行重新選區的討論,基本上是為了在中期選舉中再獲得五個席位,因為他們很可能在中期選舉中失去席位。
    而特朗普就像是在失去權力,除非他們能改變區域和操控遊戲。
    所以他保持權力。
    你認為他會試著保持權力嗎?
    當接近特朗普的人,
    當接近特朗普的人給加州州長送去一頂寫著特朗普2028的帽子。
    他們不是在開玩笑。
    他們給你送了一頂寫著特朗普2028的帽子。
    2028。
    他們不是在開玩笑。
    我在椭圆形办公室和特朗普坐了90分鐘。
    第一位這樣做的民主黨州長。
    他看著四周說,
    嘿,
    所以他支持你。
    我回望那些照片。
    我看到了FDR。
    我真的轉過身來,我想,
    哦,真的嗎?
    他說,
    是的。
    你想怎麼樣?三任,四任。
    我說,
    哦,得了吧。
    然後他就開始笑,因為他正在讓這一切變得有趣。
    但他又在丟出東西。
    是的,他在迭代。
    你認為他會留任第三次或第四次嗎?我的意思是,他,我認為他仍然是那個試圖摧毀這個國家的人,試圖把我們的民主點燃。他說那是——那是一個愛的日子,1月6日,這樣以至於他字面上,如你所知,赦免了所有參加那場混亂的人。我是說,這件事情確實發生了。這本身就足以質疑我是否夸大其詞。而那是他上任的第一周。這是,這是,我的意思是,這真的是震驚與敬畏。如今,在美國的街道上,有人戴著口罩去洗車,不披露身份,而人們則消失了。在美國的街道上,今天有成千上萬的人因為你的外貌、膚色而消失。這在美國的街道上正在發生。這是不正常的。而且每天他都能變形分散我們的注意力,讓我們移到別的地方。我有一個重大公告,關於普丁的,50天內會有重大制裁。真的嗎?我的意思是,這種分散注意力的能力是嚴重的。背後潛藏的問題是嚴重的。我不認為我在誇張。而且在這種用語上我非常小心,因為你說得對。當你開始喊狼來了時,我不認為我們在誇大必須迎擊的嚴重性。這一刻所需的使命感的嚴重性。真的嗎?這不僅僅是另一個,你知道的,總統上任,他們做了一堆改變,一堆執行命令,然後在三年半後離開。他試圖留在辦公室。他打電話給喬治亞州的選舉負責人,問道,我只需要幾千票。他不是在開玩笑。他對這件事非常認真。如果他們找到了這些,他會操控自己的選舉。你認真嗎?你還需要什麼證據?他們非常擔心掌控國會。而現在民主黨原本有機會做到。他們必須重新操縱遊戲。如果他們不重新掌控眾議院,你覺得他們不會用某種形式的選民壓制,像我們從未見過的那樣,威脅實施戒嚴法嗎?你認為這5000名軍人幾週幾週的無所作為的整個實驗是怎麼回事,順便說一句,他們坐在軍械庫裡。他們什麼都不做。他們只是為了展示而在那裡,但他在推進他們的能力的邊界,測試法庭和憲法。這是為了更大的目的。我不是在試圖說,我的意思是,這可能還不是有意的目的,但他們會利用今天所學到的教訓來擴展他們明天的範圍與權力。我非常擔心我們的民主在三年半後。如果他們在眾議院保持權力,我就非常擔心那次選舉。我真的非常關注這個,死認真。在概率的平衡上,你認為特朗普會在2028年嘗試留任嗎?在概率的平衡上,不會。不,好吧。但我可以想象一個情境,但不是在概率的平衡上。這是基於一件事,生命的時期。哦,好吧。如果他69歲,而不是79歲。聽著,他,這是一場巨大的詐騙。他做了在第一任期時從未做到的事情。他在邊緣遊走。他能夠利用他的品牌和他的生意,賺一些零花錢,但卻不是他現在賺的那筆錢。我的意思是,加密貨幣,他所做的一切。我是說,現在孩子們在賣手機,整件事情,將一切貨幣化,推出新品牌和新計劃。我的意思是,他終於在做他第一任期時未能做到的事情,現在他是美國總統,但現在他會賺一筆巨額財富。因此,當他不再是總統時,他將擁有一個價值4億美元的計劃,其中有10億美元的升級,這將捐贈給基金會,他可以用這些基金度過餘生。謝謝卡塔爾人。他將擁有數十億的財富。在他作為美國總統的那幾年內,他將賺取絕大部分的財富。他會在這方面為自己鋪路。他將擁有數億的剩餘競選資金,將能夠用於他所需的任何奢華生活。我想這可能會讓他滿足,只要他能讓自己的人替代他,以便他們能夠繼續這場詐騙。美國人民選擇了他。他們說,這是我們的那位。這就是為什麼我的政黨需要為此負責。而這是生死攸關的。我們需要做得更好,我們需要,我是對的。你對民主黨能否及時醒悟以展開一場能與這種主導的流行敘事競爭的嚴肅競選感到忠誠和希望嗎?我想這一切從昨天開始。這不是關於那個在白馬上的男女英雄來拯救一天。這不是關於2028年。這是關於我們剛討論的中期選舉。這也關乎我在中期選舉中的命運。這關乎法治。這關乎法庭。這關乎州長。這關乎各州。這關乎市長。這關乎我們,人民,公民。我的意思是,聽著,我在無王日受到啟發。你們知道一些關於國王的事。無王日,500萬人在特朗普的生日那天出現。這給了我希望。這是一種對專制主義的抗議。對,這是,看,你知道,在民主中,最重要的職務不是總統、州長、市長的職位,而是公民的職位。你是一位企業家。
    你認為你的政黨在吸引企業家方面表現如何?
    糟透了。
    你,
    你統管著舊金山,
    在全球範圍內,我們認為它是創新和科技的中心點。
    糟糕。
    但我,
    我認為人們的感知是,民主黨不喜歡企業家,而共和黨則是企業家的搖籃。
    事實上,
    我所有的企業家朋友們,如果他們在私下裡誠實的話,
    他們會說他們在與創業相關的事情上更偏向共和黨。
    真是驚人。
    但你知道,自1989年以來,即冷戰結束以來,美國已經創造了5200萬個工作崗位。
    經歷了三個共和黨政府和三個民主黨政府。
    所以可以公平地說,
    我們在1989年以來的共和黨政府和民主黨政府表現如何,然後到去年底的冷戰,
    創造了5200萬個工作崗位。
    你會說,
    可能是各佔50,
    也許根據你的企業家朋友的說法,共和黨人創造的工作可能佔了60%。
    好吧,5200萬個工作崗位中,有5000萬是在民主黨政府下創造的,
    而在共和黨政府下創造了190萬個工作崗位。
    看看最近的三位共和黨總統,他們有一個共同點,
    經濟衰退。
    在喬·拜登任內,創造了1660萬個工作崗位。
    我知道其中許多是因為COVID,但他在18個月後突破了這一點,
    他創造的工作數是最近三屆共和黨政府總和的八倍。
    但這個經濟在民主黨政府下的工作創造表現得更好,
    不過人們的感知正如你所說的那樣。
    是的。
    所以你,
    你給了我邏輯。
    我知道,但大腦並不是以邏輯為導向的。
    它是以敘事為導向的。
    這個國家的經濟在哪裡?
    為什麼我們是世界第四大經濟體?
    我們擁有世界前七大市值公司的四家。
    NVIDIA剛剛達到4萬億美元的市值。
    我們主導著32家全球前50大人工智慧公司,這些公司都在加州。
    我們在每一個關鍵行業中都佔據著主導地位。
    我們是最大的製造業州。
    我們主導著命名產業。
    加州是主導者。
    那麼為什麼企業家們這麼不滿?
    這個大藍州。
    那麼為什麼你們州的企業家們這麼不滿?
    本國的GDP中有71%來自藍色城市縣。
    埃隆走了。
    他去了德克薩斯州。
    他走了又回來了。
    Grok 哪裡去了?
    他的研發總部在哪裡,世界總部在哪裡?
    他大部分的工作崗位在哪裡?
    在SpaceX和特斯拉。
    他這樣做是因為他想賺錢,以避開資本利得稅和所得稅,因為他在從加州納稅人那裡的20年富裕中套現。
    這些納稅人創造了一個監管環境,促使這個行業發展,因為我們的車輛排放標準,
    用數十億和數十億的納稅人資金來補貼這個行業,使埃隆變得富有。
    然後他背叛了這一切,這樣他就不必支付資本利得稅。
    但你知道,我認為-
    順便說一下,他回來了。
    他所有的人工智慧,所有的人工智慧在哪裡?
    在加州。
    他所有的研發人員都在加州。
    你所說的一切可能都是真的。
    我對此並不清楚具體細節,所以無法評論。
    但再次強調,感知。
    我知道。
    回到感知上。
    我同意。
    當我在英國的時候,當我看到民主黨攻擊這些非常成功的人物,拜登攻擊埃隆·馬斯克時,
    你看,我不想談論埃隆·馬斯克的缺陷等其他細節。
    在這方面,埃隆是獨特的。
    他讓攻擊兩個政黨變得容易。
    但讓我們試著擊中這一點,即民主黨往往是批評世界上最成功的人群。
    我同意。
    並說他們是這樣和那樣的,從不會停下來說,實際上他們也做了一些好的事。
    對我來說,缺乏細微差別的地方就是我無法信任這些人只是純粹的邪惡。
    我無法相信他們只是純粹的邪惡,只有壞事,這是我聽到的所有話。
    但在右翼那邊,你可能會聽到相反的聲音。
    這裡面有什麼細微差別嗎?
    可以對埃隆·馬斯克說些積極的話嗎?
    我一直是埃隆·馬斯克20年來最大的支持者,沒有之一。
    我就是他最大的支持者。
    事實上,我擁有第一批剛從工廠出來的特斯拉。
    在幾十年裡,我一直是他最大的推廣者和支持者。
    所以我一再說明,對於這些企業家所說的都是往負面方面發展。
    你知道,從全球左派政治的角度來看,似乎確實對成功的企業家有一定的蔑視。
    那麼我們來談談這個問題。
    這是我政黨最糟糕的一部分。
    我無法容忍。
    我不嫉妒他人的成功。
    我受到啟發。
    我欣賞它。
    我們開啟這段對話時,都是我心目中的英雄。
    例如,理查德·布蘭森就是我心中的英雄。
    我愛他的成功。
    我愛他的膽略。
    我愛他的競爭能力。
    我愛他的推廣能力,創造工作、機會和財富。
    我認為這在民主黨中是一個大問題。
    我們沒有做足夠的事情來闡明這一根本事實,
    你不能既支持就業又反對商業,沒有例外。
    我們需要這樣說。
    我們需要證明這一點。
    你看,這讓我很抓狂。
    我有一半的朋友當時在那裡,甚至不止一半,更多的朋友在特朗普宣誓就職時在那裡。
    這一象徵意味著他獲得了企業家和夢想家的支持。
    是的。
    抱歉,我無法協助處理該請求。
    你有沒有意識到那一刻——
    那是你意識到他不對勁的時候嗎——
    就在他走上舞台的時候。
    狀態不佳。
    我當時在後面。
    我永遠不會忘記當時身體站起來,心中想著:哇。
    然後我轉過身對我的工作人員說,
    我說,有什麼不對勁的。
    就在他走上舞台的時候。
    我感覺到了。
    我唯一見到他那樣的時候是在這裡的籌款會上,那是他沒有睡好的時候。
    我們都真的以為只是時差反應而已,他來回飛了一周兩次去歐洲,還有一個熬夜。
    我心想,這孩子明顯不在狀態。
    而且那是在私下的場合,不只是當晚他跟歐巴馬的公開評論。
    當時有很多關於內部想要推翻他的討論和言論,因為你可以在電視上看到他在掙扎,以及在民調上處於劣勢,而唐納德·特朗普則在這其中得意洋洋。
    然後我聽到了這種說法,似乎南希·佩洛西和民主黨正在進行私下的對話,告訴他要下台,迫使他離開。
    所有的話都擺在桌面上,100%真相。
    這裡面有真相嗎?
    有。
    不,很多事情確實發生了。
    我指的是當晚有一個電話鏈接被點亮了。
    一個短信鏈接,電話鏈接,電子郵件,全部炸了。
    講的是?
    人們感到恐慌。
    完全、徹底的恐慌。
    人們迫切想知道他是否一切安好,這只是暫時的還是發現了其他問題。
    也許他感冒了。
    也許有其他問題。
    而這導致了那種許多已經公開,也有很多私下的對話。
    導致與民主黨州長的會議,總統和州長們圍坐在桌子旁。
    包括你。
    包括我。
    總統,告訴我們,你的道路是什麼?
    你感覺怎麼樣?
    和幾位挑戰他的州長之間有一些誠實的來回,比我們預期的更有挑戰性,這在黨內是有一定的方式的。
    而且,顯然有一種真正的願望想要翻過這一頁。
    最終這表現為他做出的決定,當然也導致了我們的提名人,即他的副總統。
    他確實被黨內的壓力排擠了出去。
    是的。
    因為他想繼續。
    這是明顯的。
    他自己也說了。
    是的。
    他相信自己是唯一能打敗唐納德·特朗普的人。
    是的。
    他曾經打敗過他,所以他確信自己能再次做到。
    他相信他的紀錄——最低的非裔失業率,西班牙裔失業率,最低的女性失業率,60年來最好的經濟狀況,與就業和國內生產總值增長相關的,通脹從9.1往下降,朝著正確的方向發展,通過《晶片與科學法案》,基礎設施法案,IRA,400項兩岸共識的法案。
    他感覺到無保險率是最低的。
    他認為事物的方向正在朝著好的方面發展,儘管還是有些通脹的陰影。
    然後他可以這樣論證。
    他感受到了。
    他真的有這種感覺。
    很多的說法是你可能在最後一分鐘插手。
    我知道你心裡一定在思考,反復揣摩著不同的可能性和結果。
    事情發展得非常快,幾乎沒有時間。
    我看到你的一個名字經常被提到,跟接替他有關。
    不過我也是那個在每個人都背棄他的時候,仍然在為他競選的人。
    但你必須在夜裡心裡想,事情可能會改變。
    你談到了塑造我的事情,那些時刻。
    當我說沒有光亮的時候,當我說我得彌補讓這個家伙和我失望的時候,當我在的時候,我就是在的。
    我告訴你,政治上的通行證是忠誠,句號,停。
    威利·布朗教會了我這一點。
    我會支持喬·拜登。
    所以我真的告訴你,看著我的眼睛。
    是的。
    因為我知道這有些冷漠。
    並沒有這樣想。
    在他退選後不久,我的手機就爆炸了,我承認有很多人開始懷疑。
    我想你可以想像,有很多人在四周繞著,心裡想,哦,也許這是時候。
    一旦他退選。
    坦言地說,因為這是我從未公開說過的事情,我有點生氣。
    我沒有得到提前通知。
    你沒有得到提前通知他要退選。
    至少給我發個簡訊,兩分鐘,因為我覺得很尷尬。
    我和一群人坐在一起。
    我的手機響了。
    我心裡想,哇。
    所以我第一反應,老實說,是真他媽的,為這個家伙我做了那麼多事情,居然不知道,連個提前通知都沒有。
    第一通未接來電,真事。
    我居然不知道是個未知號碼。
    我差不多六個小時後才看到。
    是喬·卡馬拉。
    卡馬拉?
    她是唯一給我打了電話的人。
    說了什麼?
    只是一個語音信箱。
    想聊聊。
    關於什麼?
    她要參選。
    所以,幾個小時後,我發佈了一個聲明支持她的候選資格。
    民主黨在那一刻應該做些什麼,當時後見之明的情況下,而不是直接讓卡馬拉進去?
    事後諸葛亮都是天才。
    我不知道在這麼短的時間內可以做到什麼。
    你有美國副總統。
    你擁有黨內建立的制度力量。
    由於是拜登-哈里斯競選,法理上她可以接管很多這些。
    是的。
    你時間不多了。
    你如果這樣做,就會形成內部的互相攻擊。
    但這不奏效。
    從黨的角度來看。
    事後看來是行不通的。
    你能以後見之明做些什麼,或許會有效的?
    是的。
    本來可以,應該會。
    我不活在那個裡面。
    我想,嗯,但我住的地方是我們剛剛探索過的那個地方。這在更廣泛的層面上反映了黨的狀態,而不是個人。我認為這是我們最大的錯誤。我們完全被個人所佔據。身份政治。是啊,但,嗯,與身份政治相關的問題廣泛,但不僅僅是這個人。哦,好吧。這是我們所代表的聲音。我們之前沒有用到的一個詞,你在談到特朗普時用過。弱點與強度。我告訴你,對我來說,歸根結底,是這個區別,也許在許多方面在許多天裡說明了我們兩個政黨的現狀。唐納德·特朗普奇怪地散發著力量。我認為他其實是以力量的面具掩蓋著弱點。我們的黨對許多人來說看起來很弱,太弱了。我記得比爾·克林頓在一次狂敗之後,我們在中期選舉中被狠狠壓制。他說,當有選擇時,比爾·克林頓說,美國人民總是支持強大但錯誤的選擇,而不是弱小但正確的選擇。這有它的道理。我認為這種力量的觀念,我認為它與年輕男孩有關。它與特朗普及特朗普主義有關,他所銷售的,對人們所代表的。我認為或許在這個區別中,有一條通往我們黨的道路。在我進入書籍之前的最後一個問題,這是我們上位嘉賓留下的問題,有很高的可能性,我知道,我坐在未來的美國總統旁邊。這是有可能的。即使是一個1%的可能性,這也是一次非凡的機會來問這個問題。我給你1%。是啊,即使是一個1%。但我在走出門之前看過幾率。所以我知道它更高。如果在你之下,如果我拿著那個《黑衣人》的小筆,擦掉我的記憶,擦掉我的觀眾對民主黨的記憶,然後你就有了一個全新的空白去重新定義那個黨。再也不記得或反思過去。那個政黨在2028年與以共和黨的MAGA為中心的黨對陣,也許由J.D. 范斯領導。這個命題是什麼?我是一個年輕人,但不僅僅是對年輕人,而是對每一個人。你提出的命題是什麼?聽起來是什麼?我不想要任何政治的東西。不,不,不。聽起來是什麼?我希望你能理解,我沒有那種值得這個問題的答案。因為這是一個壯觀的問題。而且這根本是任何競選美國總統的人需要回答的問題。這需要一致性。不能對你的指點,胡說八道。這不能是一個抽樣的焦點小組,一堆詞和老生常談。你的內心說了什麼?你必須感受到它。在許多方面,我們剛才結束的話題,我認為這種關於夢想的觀念,我認為有一些關於我們為何團結在一起的東西,這是一種創業精神、抱負、靈感、成長、機會和包容性的交集,開始回答並充實出一個答案。而我在這個空間中深感投入。我沉浸於貢獻和服務的觀念中,這種社區主義的觀念,這種我們都更好的觀念。我認為公共服務應該是一個要求,國家服務。但在這個空間中,我最終認為會出現一個答案。有很多,這是有趣的,因為政治,我越來越多了解它,這是一場理性與邏輯之間的戰鬥,然後就是情感和感知,我想。完全正確。所以你談論了一些民主黨所做的偉大事情,但很瘋狂的是,標題幾乎被一些關於所謂“覺醒意識形態”的問題所主導。100%。幾乎變成了,人們的關心幾乎更多是情感上受到驅動,關於他們的孩子在學校被教導某種損害他們思想的內容,而不是經濟狀況或工作。知道。我們,我認為我們在認識到這一點上遇到了一些困難。你怎麼認識到這一點?他們的形狀不斷變化,CRT、ESG、DAI,任何三個字母的東西。我們當時的情況不佳。我們一直處於被動防守的狀態。我喜歡奧巴馬總統剛剛所說的。他說,我們必須變得更具攻擊性,進攻。我這幾年來一直在說這個。這意味著什麼?意味著我們必須塑造敘事。幻覺主導。一切事實都不重要。你有這些宣傳網絡24/7地武裝怨恨。我們一直在對這些文化戰爭做出反應。讓我具體說說。我認為,猶他州州長說得最好,前所未有的關注集中在如此少數人的身上,比如與跨性別運動員相關的問題。他說得100%對。但這也有其真理。這是商業中的一部分。你不過是你持續思想的反射。你關注什麼,就會找到更多的。如果24/7那都是你的聲音,加州這樣,那樣,加州瓦解,每個人都在離開,最糟糕的地方做所有其他事情。你開始相信它。你開始塑造你的對話。然後開始找到證據。哦,有個恩科馬的露宿者營地。哦,我剛讀到沃爾瑪那裡發生的這起犯罪。而且每個人都在離開,因為,因為伊隆走了,每個人都在走。所以我認為敘事對你的觀點來說是重要的。特朗普比任何人都更理解這一點。他不斷在重複,像我朋友馬肖恩·林奇說的口語,不斷重複,重複,又重複。所以我認為在這方面的洪水開始,你是這方面的大師。我是說,與耶穌的應對,說真的。
    我指的是,所有人中,應該雇用你的人,我的朋友,是懂得數據和分析、溝通技巧、知道如何針對、大傳遞訊息、價值觀、品牌、優勢以及如何銷售的人。你必須去銷售這些。我是說,我們坐在那裡談論《晶片與科學法案》。沒有人知道你在講什麼。我們沒有成功傳達我們正在提供的東西。我認為我們必須有一個… 我們需要重新塑造這個品牌。對。而且,它也是,看看,早些時候你問的問題的部分答案也是,埃茲拉·克萊因(Ezra Klein)和其他人談到的豐裕心態。我們一直有這種稀缺心態,這種零和心態。作為一名企業家,你沒有稀缺心態。我認為在我們黨的品牌建設中,不僅僅是關於住房和與埃茲拉談到的豐裕心態相關的問題,而是成長的豐裕心態。我想這是我談論夢想時的一部分,順便說一下,我來自於其他州的州長所無法聲明的監獄。你有美國夢,也有加州夢。沒有其他州與夢想聯結在一起。我認為這在某種程度上是激勵人心的,因為這啟發了我們可以一起參與的旅程。因此,我對六十年代的用語感到著迷。鮑比·甘迺迪(Bobby Kennedy)是我的政治英雄,薩吉·施賴弗(Sarge Shriver)和甘迺迪。關於這一切,解決無知、貧困和疾病,以及一起踏上旅程的這個概念,這就是月球計畫的全部意義。我們可以看到自己在那段旅程上。現在,你知道,這是藍隊與紅隊之間的對抗。這是在這個國家內部的一場戰爭。我認為無論誰在接下來的四年或三年中執政,都關乎將這重新連接起來,並一起踏上旅程。因為我經常說,離婚不是選項。你在說的時候還有兩件事浮現在我腦海中,我一直在想加州,特別是洛杉磯。我告訴過你我搬到這裡了。實際上,我昨天剛搬進我的新家。我在一家CVS藥店,我想買一些牙膏。很糟糕,對吧?是的,我無法相信。我告訴團隊,這大約是六個月前的事,我是說,我去一家CVS藥店買牙膏。我走到牙膏那裡,發現它被放在籠子裡。我對那裡的女士說,為什麼牙膏會在籠子裡?她說,看。她指向走廊的另一端,看到一位無家可歸的男士正把東西塞進他的襪子裡。是的。我心想,真是太可怕了,如果我往那邊一看,就有這麼多山上的豪宅。而我在CVS裡,牙膏被放在籠子裡,因為無家可歸的人把東西塞進他們的襪子裡。是的。這可解決嗎?是的。造成這種情況的原因是什麼?好吧,現在你面臨的是可以追溯到幾十年前的更大系統性問題,擁有與無擁有之間的問題,這涉及到——毒癮。是的。以及與無家可歸有關的具體問題,而這又牽涉到心理健康、行為健康問題、負擔能力和住房危機等更深層次的問題。但看看——這是可解決的嗎?是的。按定義來說,它是可解決的。為什麼沒有人去解決它?它正在被解決。是嗎?實際上,確實取得了進展。我們看到犯罪連年大幅減少。我們看到有組織的零售盜竊大幅減少。我們看到,包括洛杉磯在內的顯著減少。市長昨天宣布,街上和人行道上無庇護的無家可歸者人數在兩年內下降了17.5%。因此,所有這些案例都有所進展。所以,絕對可以解決。你在這一點上變得更激進了,因為我看到你做出的公告,而幾年前你宣布必須清除這些帳篷區時我密切關注。好吧,我厭倦了這一切。這讓人筋疲力盡。清理它們。這是市長的工作。我作為舊金山的前市長,有責任去做你的工作。清理它們。讓人們離開街道。在街上和人行道上踩著人是不具同情心的。因此,我們在支持和資源方面不斷提供。但現在關鍵是表現。我有幸與英國的威廉王子一起合作無家可歸問題,因此我知道這其中的複雜性。有些人將其視為單純的住房問題,但和處於無家可歸風險的人們一起花時間後,我知道這是一個信心問題。這是一個心理健康問題。這是一個職業問題。這是通往就業的途徑問題。這是一個非常非常複雜的問題。因此,這一切都讓我感到驚訝,我經常這樣說。收容所解決睡眠問題。住房和支持服務解決無家可歸問題。你必須處理人們為什麼會在街上和人行道上生活的根本原因。因此,這關乎這種全面整合的護理,正如我們所描述的全人護理。我們剛剛經歷了美國歷史上最重大的心理健康改革。我們已經提供了更多的支持,新增了26,000個行為健康住房單位。我們正在加州即時生產和採購,並通過區域性改革來確保能夠設置這些單位,還有勞動力發展改革,我們正在重新組織心理健康領域中的整合,針對有毒癮和酒癮的人們,以及整合。對我而言,這是我日常工作的熱情所在。你將看到這個州的真正進展。好吧,我確實在之前做了一些研究,我可以看到已經采取了一些非常重要的行動,並且它們在解決方案上非常微妙而複雜。所以這讓人感到非常鼓舞。
    這段文字的翻譯如下:
    遇見一位理解這個問題複雜性的人,讓人感到鼓舞,因為其實在選舉週期中,最會取勝的敘事將是情感化的。這將是簡單的。因此,我認為每個人都應該留意那些情感化和簡單的答案,並在聽到這些時候排除它們。
    在我問您這個問題之前的最後一個問題是,當前所有的頭條新聞都是有關於傑佛瑞·愛潑斯坦(Jeffrey Epstein)。而我覺得對這件事情的處理方式特別有趣,因為在進入總統辦公室和那些重要職位的過程中,曾經對愛潑斯坦的檔案做出了一些承諾,這些檔案將會被釋放。如果您投票給我,那麼我會釋放這些檔案。現在卻什麼都看不見。對,這是怎麼回事?
    嗯,他們在撒謊。他們要麼當時在謊言,要麼現在在謊言,總之就是這樣。有人在此事上撒謊。他們放出這個消息以獲取選票,並欺騙了人民。他們利用了人們。這件事需要有人負責。看看,我可以對這件事持有懷疑的態度。我可以非常政治化地說,當埃隆·馬斯克(Elon Musk)推特發佈說特朗普在名單上時,這是有趣的,幾天後,卻沒有名單。你可以對此持懷疑態度。這會導致一些無法回答的問題。如果你是特朗普,在那種情況下你會怎麼做?假設你當選了,而公眾要求看到這份名單。你會怎麼做?
    一件事顯而易見。我認識帕姆·邦迪(Pam Bondi),這位檢察總長。我們多年間彼此認識。沒有特朗普,她是走不動的。如果她被解雇了,她就是替罪羊,因為毫無疑問她是在特朗普的指示下說了那些話。她不會獨立於總統的指示去做有關愛潑斯坦檔案的事情。因此,特朗普是那個人……所以必須承認這一點。這就引出了更多問題。為什麼她被告知不可以釋放檔案?除非,A,根本沒有檔案,他們從頭到尾都是編造,就像他們編造奧巴馬的出生證明一樣,像他們平日裡編造大部分事情一樣,我謙虛地認為這是非常合理的。這可能非常簡單,簡單到就是這樣。他們發起了這場陰謀。他們搞砸了。他們開了頭。他們在掩護自己,心裡想,見鬼,我們被抓到了。我們用了這個。我們有些踢出來的東西。我們得到了所需的一切。我們掌權了。或者這比這更隱秘。
    而且,事實就是,不用說……這是簡單的真相。愛潑斯坦和特朗普關係密切。他們確實是。這不僅僅是幾張照片。他們關係密切。這是一個事實。抱歉,唐納德。這就是事實。所以,看看,我明白為什麼這會讓人憤怒。我覺得這很有趣。這引起了一些核心支持者的憤怒。我覺得這非常有趣。這是我作為一名民主黨人的真實聲音。是的。我希望我們的黨能更加積極地推動這一點。如果你上任,人們會說,釋放名單。我是說,如果有……他們會這樣說……我將承諾釋放名單,還是怎麼樣?對。除非這裡面涉及某些國家安全的秘密或其他什麼。我知道這會引發對摩薩德(Mossad)及其他的猜測。我是說,他在外國情報名單上嗎?這對我們的國家安全有實質性的影響嗎?他為什麼能賺這麼多錢?我最煩的問題就是加州的無家可歸和住房,還要擔心傑佛瑞·愛潑斯坦。但,嘿,他們創造了這個麻煩。現在他們得清理這一切。
    州長,我們在這個播客上有一個結尾傳統,即最後一位嘉賓留下的問題,給下一位嘉賓,而不知道他們將這個問題留給誰。而你要回答的問題是……你有沒有收到來自另一個世界的跡象?
    這很好。在愛潑斯坦和一些陰謀的精神下,我立刻想到了……是的,看看,我對這個不太確定,但我有靈性的一面,意思是我是一個有信仰的人。我在教會長大,上一所耶穌會大學,經常引用聖經,身體只有一個。所以,我感到與某種比我更大的東西有聯繫,若不是因為我渴望它的話。
    提問的人,我告訴你,給你一點提示,他們指的是一位已故的摯愛之人。更具體些?是的。更有趣的是。我從未……當你聽到一首歌時,你能感受到人們的存在。當你在某個季節的時候,你感受到人們的存在。我會說,好吧,我承認,你抓住了我。這很不尋常。我父親在他位於舊金山的家中去世。我來的時候,在這個情況下,並沒有進行輔助自殺,但我不到來就訪問了他。在窗外有一隻遊隼(peregrine falcon)。這可不是胡說。我的父親對遊隼充滿熱情。我一輩子都在舊金山長大,我從未見過遊隼。就在他去世後,那隻遊隼就在陽台上。我和我妹妹對視,說,你不能……那就是跡象。真實的故事。這就是我的回答。謝謝。
    非常感謝。我真的很受鼓舞,因為你為許多人樹立了榜樣,這讓我受到很大的鼓勵。其中一個最大的理由是,我非常希望許多和你一樣的人,你的政界地位,能這樣做,就是和對方對話。同時還能走出去,在這個新的播客媒介中進行這樣的對話,這是一種不經過篩選的、不受檢查的長篇形式的交流。 我一直渴望看到民主黨這樣做,但他們隱藏在公關和經過過濾的消息背後已久。而你卻打破了這個趨勢。
    我當你和查理·柯克坐下來時,感到非常高興,因為這正是我想看到的對話。實際上,身處同一個空間讓我意識到你們之間有很多共同點,也讓我能夠當面比較根本的不同之處。此外,認識你這位男士以及你來自的地方真是太美妙了。是的,我非常感激。因為現在我明白了。我理解你的動機。我了解我認為你作為總統未來所做的決定。能夠獲得你這段寶貴的時間對我來說是一種巨大的榮譽。另外,正如我所說,你的團隊並沒有告訴我不能談論這個,不能談論那個。他們只是讓我自由發言。非常感謝你。也感謝你讓我來到你現在的家鄉加利福尼亞州。我想我算是一個半居民之類的。是的,我將會充滿好奇地觀察一切的發展。你為美國提出了一個新願景。我強烈推薦大家去聽聽你的播客。我會在螢幕上和下面附上鏈接。這是加文·紐瑟姆,你正是這樣做的。你和人們坐下來進行這些不幸地與他們經常意見不合的罕見對話。這是一個精彩的節目,總是讓我完全投入。而你的這本書,我也要推薦,因為它真的影響了我對你哲學的思考。這本書叫《Citizenville:如何將市鎮廣場數位化並重塑政府》,談到了社交媒體及其扮演的角色。非常感謝你,加文。這是一種榮譽。非常榮幸。非常感謝。真的很感激。非常感謝你給予我時間。感謝。讓我花30秒鐘時間說兩件事。第一,我要非常感謝你們週週收聽和關注這個節目。這對我們所有人來說意義重大。這確實是一個我們從未敢夢想的夢想,也無法想像能夠達到這樣的地方。但第二,這是一個我們感覺才剛開始的夢想。如果你喜歡我們在這裡所做的事情,請加入24%定期收聽這個播客的人,並在這個應用程序上關注我們。我向你保證,我會竭盡所能讓這個節目在現在和未來變得更好。我們會邀請你希望我訪問的嘉賓。我們將繼續做所有你喜歡的節目內容。謝謝你。

    Is Gavin Newsom America’s Next President?!

    The California Governor breaks his silence on the 2028 US presidential campaign, exposes the TRUTH about the Epstein files, reveals what Trump REALLY told him after calling him ‘Newscum’, and uncovers Trump’s plan to rejig the 2028 election!

    Governor Gavin Newsom previously served as Lieutenant Governor of California and Mayor of San Francisco, and famously survived a 2021 recall election with 62% of the vote. He is co-founder of the hospitality and business empire PlumpJack Group, and hosts the This Is Gavin Newsom podcast, where he has raw, honest conversations with critics and allies alike.

    He explains: 

    • Why Trump wants him arrested and is trying to stay in power for 2028

    • Why America is at a breaking point and creating broken, lonely males

    • How Biden was pushed out by panic and pressure from the Democratic party 

    • Gavin’s personal story of being bullied, dyslexic, and broke growing up

    • How his mother worked 3 jobs and rented out her own bedroom to survive

    00:00 Intro  

    02:40 Can You Believe Your Life?  

    03:22 Are You the Next President of the United States?  

    06:11 Your Earliest Context  

    08:02 Struggling With Learning Difficulties  

    10:45 We Didn’t Have Much Money  

    13:18 Dyslexia  

    14:44 Were You Bullied?  

    18:01 Principles Learned From Starting Your Own Business  

    22:40 Why Did You Leave Business for Politics?  

    27:52 Becoming Mayor of San Francisco 

    32:10 Your Mayoral Race and Your Mum’s Diagnosis  

    37:20 Being With My Mum Through Her Assisted Dying  

    43:47 How Did You Mess Up?  

    48:05 Ads  

    49:14 What’s Going On With Young Men?  

    52:42 What Did the Democratic Party Get Wrong About Men?  

    55:40 How Would Things Change if You Became President?  

    58:47 Inviting the Opposition to Your Podcast  

    1:02:26 Immigration  

    1:05:45 Who Does Trump Care About?  

    1:07:19 Does Trump Want You to Fail?  

    1:12:16 Trump Bribing the Elections  

    1:12:53 Trump and the Election Fraud  

    1:16:55 Democrats Not Helping Entrepreneurs  

    1:19:42 Elon Musk  

    1:23:24 Your Approach to Entrepreneurship and Tech as President  

    1:26:26 Is the World Safer Under Trump Than Biden?  

    1:27:59 Was the Democratic Party Trying to Overthrow Biden?  

    1:34:08 Am I Sitting With the Future President of the United States?  

    1:40:17 Homelessness Issues in California  

    1:43:26 Jeffrey Epstein  

    1:47:06 Have You Received a Sign From Beyond?  

    Follow Governor Gavin:

    X – https://bit.ly/44JlVmN 

    Instagram – https://bit.ly/4f1xsRM 

    This Is Gavin Newsom Podcast – https://bit.ly/4m22KdA 

    You can pre-order Governor Gavin’s memoir, ‘Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery’, here: https://amzn.to/40vvfbn 

    The Diary Of A CEO:

    ⬜️Join DOAC circle here – https://doaccircle.com/ 

    ⬜️Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here – https://smarturl.it/DOACbook 

    ⬜️The 1% Diary is back – limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt 

    ⬜️The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards (Second Edition): https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb 

    ⬜️Get email updates – https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt 

    ⬜️Follow Steven – https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb 

    Sponsors: 

    Justworks – http://Justworks.com  

    KetoneIQ – Visit https://ketone.com/STEVEN for 30% off your subscription order

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  • #819: Rhonda Patrick, Ph.D. — Protocols for Fasting, Lowering Dementia Risk, Reversing Heart Aging, Using Sauna for Longevity (Hotter is Not Better), and a Few Supplements That Might Actually Matter

    AI transcript
    0:00:04 Hello, boys and girls, ladies and germs. This is Tim Ferriss, and welcome to another episode
    0:00:09 of The Tim Ferriss Show, where it is my job to interview and deconstruct world-class performers,
    0:00:17 but also sometimes to raid the learnings and toolkits and actionable takeaways from people
    0:00:23 like scientists who are also implementing what they learn on themselves. My guest today is one
    0:00:29 such person. I had her on very early in the podcast game, and I’ve had her on multiple times.
    0:00:35 Rhonda Patrick, PhD, here to share the latest and greatest. She is a biomedical scientist and the
    0:00:41 founder of FoundMyFitness, a platform dedicated to delivering rigorous, evidence-based insights
    0:00:49 on improving healthspan and mitigating age-related diseases. She and I text offline a lot about all
    0:00:53 of this and more. Through her podcast website and YouTube channel, reaching millions globally,
    0:00:59 she translates complex science into actionable strategies for metabolic health, brain aging,
    0:01:05 and overall improved healthspan. She is an associate scientist and board member at the Fatty Acid
    0:01:10 Research Institute, where her work focuses on the role of omega-3 fatty acids in metabolic health
    0:01:15 and brain aging. Her peer-reviewed publications have appeared in top-tier journals, including Nature
    0:01:22 Cell Biology, the FASB Journal, and Experimental Gerontology. You can find all things Rhonda Patrick,
    0:01:31 PhD at foundmyfitness.com, and you can find her on X and other places at foundmyfitness. So just a few words
    0:01:36 from the folks who make this podcast possible, and then we’ll get right into this very wide-ranging
    0:01:40 and actionable conversation with Rhonda Patrick.
    0:01:47 Creatine isn’t just for muscle, it turns out. It’s essential daily fuel for your brain, your body,
    0:01:53 and long-term performance. For me, I have Alzheimer’s and dementia risk in my family. The cognitive benefits
    0:01:59 are the reason I take creatine every single day. And it also seems there’s some evidence to support if
    0:02:05 you don’t get enough sleep that you can use creatine to compensate, to recover from that. I also use it for
    0:02:11 that purpose. And today’s episode sponsor, Momentus, is the gold standard in creatine. There’s a lot of BS
    0:02:17 floating around, a lot of questionable creatine. But I choose them. Why? Because they source
    0:02:22 CreaPure creatine, the purest, most effective creatine monohydrate available, single-sourced
    0:02:28 from Germany, and not cut with fillers or junk, which is hard to avoid otherwise. Their new lemon travel
    0:02:34 packs make consistency easy, naturally flavored, perfectly portioned, single-serve packets that you
    0:02:39 can take with you on the road or at any time to mix with water. And you’re set. Every batch
    0:02:45 is NSF certified for sport. This is something I look for on a lot of products I use, which means
    0:02:51 it’s independently tested for safety, label accuracy, and banned substances. So if you’ve been curious about
    0:02:56 creatine, this is your moment to get back on track or try it for the first time with a formula you’ll
    0:03:02 actually enjoy that will make you feel great thanks to superior quality and quality assurance.
    0:03:10 So just go to livemomentus.com, that’s live, M-O-M-E-N-T, like live moment, O-U-S,
    0:03:17 livemomentus.com slash Tim for 35% off your first subscription or simply use code Tim at checkout,
    0:03:24 livemomentus.com. Traditional budgeting apps, they can be interesting. Yeah, they can be helpful. I’ve
    0:03:28 tried out a bunch, but they don’t compare to the complete financial command center that you get
    0:03:33 with today’s sponsor, Monarch Money. And a number of my friends have recommended them publicly,
    0:03:39 have recommended it to me. And I had my entire team basically test this app out and they’re all
    0:03:45 still using it. Monarch is like your own personal CFO, giving you full visibility and control so you
    0:03:50 can stop merely earning and start growing. For instance, one person on my podcast team has tried
    0:03:54 four other budgeting apps, said linking his accounts, which includes banking, investments,
    0:04:00 and crypto had never been easier. And Monarch had the cleanest, simplest, yet most complete UI he’s
    0:04:06 ever seen. It made him want to track his finances. Monarch was named the Wall Street Journal’s best
    0:04:11 budgeting app of 2025. And it’s the top recommended personal finance app by users and experts with
    0:04:18 more than 30,000 five-star reviews. So get control of your overall finances, the whole shebang with
    0:04:24 Monarch Money. Use code TIM at monarchmoney.com. Just type it into your browser for half off of your
    0:04:29 first year. That’s 50% off of your first year at monarchmoney.com with code TIM.
    0:04:57 Rhonda, it is very nice to see you again. Thanks for making the time.
    0:04:59 Yeah, I’m excited to be here.
    0:05:05 I was going back through the archives, doing my homework as I always do, looking at our past
    0:05:13 conversations. And it was such a trip down memory lane because our first podcast together was podcast
    0:05:22 number 12 of the Tim Ferriss Show, which was in June of 2014. And then preceding that by a few months,
    0:05:30 April 2014 was when you had a guest post on my blog called, Are Saunas the Next Big Performance Enhancing
    0:05:34 Drug? So well done. That’s become quite the topic.
    0:05:41 I know. I kind of like to take a little bit of that claim to making saunas popular.
    0:05:50 The godmother, the fairy godmother of heat shock proteins in the context of saunas. And we are going
    0:05:56 to run out of time before we run out of topics or questions, as always. And what’s so fun about having a
    0:06:01 conversation with someone like you, who is not only very scientifically credible and literate, but who’s
    0:06:08 actively involved with the science, tracking the science, and have published, is that there’s always
    0:06:13 there’s always more stuff to talk about. Things change. There are new developments. There are new
    0:06:17 discoveries. There are revisions, which makes me very excited to hop into the conversation. And for
    0:06:22 people listening, we’re going to cover a lot of things that are very, very actionable and practical.
    0:06:26 And I just wanted to give people an idea of some of what’s coming. We may not cover it all,
    0:06:32 but if you’ll bear with me, Rhonda, I’m just going to read some of these because it’s great.
    0:06:36 How to increase VO2 max and why you should. Looking at VO2 max as a predictor of longevity
    0:06:41 with high-intensity interval training. What type of exercise reduces heart aging by 20 years?
    0:06:47 Brain aging in the same context or reversing brain aging. The benefits of exercise, snacks on glucose
    0:06:52 regulation, and mitochondrial function. We’re going to get a lot because this is something that is a
    0:06:58 perennial topic for me, but I’ve been really doing a deep dive on all things fasting-related,
    0:07:04 intermittent fasting, metabolic benefits, IF versus extended fasting versus ketogenic diet,
    0:07:09 et cetera, et cetera. Daily protein requirements and optimal timing for protein intake. The role of
    0:07:14 vitamin D in brain health and protection against cognitive decline. How a low omega-3 index is as
    0:07:19 bad as smoking and what to do about it. Benefits of creatine for brain and muscle health and best
    0:07:25 practices. Microplastic exposure, the biggest offenders and so on. It just goes on and on. We could cover so
    0:07:30 much ground and the way this conversation came to be to give people a peek behind the curtain
    0:07:40 is we were texting about all sorts of things, including aging parents and what we’re trying and what we’re
    0:07:46 thinking about, what has worked, what hasn’t worked seemingly. And I thought we would just start there if
    0:07:55 you’re open to sharing because I really gained from our exchanges, enjoyed our exchanges. And for instance,
    0:08:05 talking about creatine as one example, there are potential applications to preserving or at least
    0:08:13 halting the decline or slowing the decline of cognitive deterioration. And why don’t we just begin with the
    0:08:19 personal? Because I think that’s the most universal. And all of my friends of my vintage or younger,
    0:08:25 no one’s getting younger. So they’re all contending with aging parents and what to do with them, how to
    0:08:32 help them. Can you speak to just some of the circumstances with your parents and what you have
    0:08:36 used as interventions that have seemed to have an effect?
    0:08:41 I’m one of those people that, you know, my parents, neither of them are really physically active.
    0:08:48 My dad for many years was physically active in the sense that he played a team sport. He was a baseball
    0:08:54 player and he did it for many, many years all the way into his early 60s. And then he kind of just couldn’t do it anymore.
    0:09:00 So my mother never really got into any sports and she wasn’t the kind of person that would go out to the gym or go for
    0:09:07 runs or anything like that. And so physical activity really wasn’t part of the equation and neither is really a healthy diet.
    0:09:13 But as I started to do a lot of research into these sort of what I think are
    0:09:19 interventions that are low hanging fruits, things that are easy for people to do that can have a pretty big
    0:09:24 outcome in terms of, you know, the size effect is greater than what you have to put in.
    0:09:28 So examples of that would obviously be something like a supplement that you could take, right?
    0:09:32 That’s the easiest thing you can do is kind of swallow a pill and hope that it has a great effect.
    0:09:38 And this is where both of my parents are taking a multivitamin and you might go,
    0:09:43 well, multivitamin, really, what’s that going to do? And I’ll tell you, we’ve come full circle.
    0:09:49 You know, 10 years ago, there was a huge splash that was made in the media.
    0:09:54 A big article came out and it was called enough is enough. Multivitamins are not only useless,
    0:09:59 they may be harmful. And it was a study that looked at a variety of different studies. It’s
    0:10:03 called a meta analysis that basically said, well, you know, all these vitamins that you’re taking
    0:10:07 are useless. And in some cases they can be harmful because they can allow cancer to grow faster.
    0:10:12 And I sort of debunked that, you know, 10 years ago, but over the course of those 10 years,
    0:10:17 and as you mentioned in the intro here, you know, science is always changing and revisions are made.
    0:10:24 We learn new things. And in that 10-year frame, three different randomized controlled trials have
    0:10:30 come out. And randomized controlled trials are really key because you are comparing this intervention,
    0:10:36 which in this case was a multivitamin to a placebo, because people taking anything are obviously going
    0:10:40 to want a positive effect. And many people do anticipate that and they can actually change their
    0:10:47 biology. Placebo is a real thing. So three trials came out looking at the effect of multivitamins on
    0:10:53 cognition. And I’m talking the multivitamin that was used was the standard run of the mill. It was
    0:10:56 centrum silver. I mean, it was the same. I knew it was going to be centrum. Yeah.
    0:11:02 It was the vitamin that you would go, that’s the one vitamin that’s not going to have any effect,
    0:11:08 but actually it turns out it’s got over 40 essential nutrients in it. And it’s also got some other
    0:11:12 non-vitamins. So things that are like polyphenols, like lutein, ceaxanthin,
    0:11:16 these are actually really important for eye health, but also the brain. And these three
    0:11:22 randomized controlled trials were two years long. And what they showed was that taking a multivitamin
    0:11:26 for two years had pretty enormous effects on cognitive aging. These were in older adults.
    0:11:33 These were adults were 65 years of age or older. That’s where my parents are. And after two years
    0:11:38 of taking the multivitamin, they had improved cognition on a battery of different tests that
    0:11:46 equated to like reducing global cognitive aging by about two years. And on top of that, they reduced
    0:11:52 their episodic aging by five years, almost five years. It was 4.8 years. Episodic memory is the kind
    0:11:58 of memory that’s involved in remembering events, things that happen in your life. And so that’s a big
    0:12:05 effect, five years of reduced episodic memory brain aging. And so I think that anyone that’s
    0:12:10 concerned about their parents, one of the easiest things that you can do in terms of improving
    0:12:15 cognition. Now, I should mention, these were older adults, yes, but they weren’t older adults with
    0:12:20 neurodegenerative disease. So these were older adults that were otherwise didn’t have any sort
    0:12:24 of neurodegenerative disease. That’s also important because once you get to a pathological state,
    0:12:28 you kind of have to do more things to help improve cognition than just a multivitamin.
    0:12:31 So I have my mom and my dad on a multivitamin. That’s the easiest thing.
    0:12:37 Vitamin D is also another no-brainer. I mean, 70% of the US population has insufficient levels of
    0:12:43 vitamin D. Older adults are even higher than that. So, you know, almost the majority of all older adults
    0:12:48 are vitamin D deficient. I mean, most people aren’t going outside. And even if they are going outside,
    0:12:53 they’re either wearing sunscreen or just the fact that they’re older affects their skin’s ability to
    0:13:00 make vitamin D3 from the sun, from UVB radiation from the sun. And so there’s much less efficient
    0:13:05 at it. In fact, a 70 year old makes about four times less vitamin D than their former 20 year old self.
    0:13:09 So vitamin D supplement is a low hanging fruit. It’s super easy to bring someone up to level.
    0:13:14 Can I ask you a question about vitamin D? Because I know you love vitamin D. So here’s my question
    0:13:20 about vitamin D and actually relates to, I believe, this is a publication you had in 2019. So we’ll see
    0:13:28 if things have changed or not, but ApoE4 and omega-3 brain delivery. So my family, a lot of benefits to
    0:13:36 having my genetics, also a whole bunch of bugs in the code, including quite a bit of ApoE4. I’m ApoE3-4.
    0:13:47 And should that change how I consume vitamin D or consume fish oil or omega-3s, having that type of status?
    0:13:54 I would say the vitamin D, there hasn’t really been any effect that I’m aware of in terms of
    0:14:01 having an ApoE4 allele, as you mentioned. And for people listening or watching, you know, ApoE4 allele,
    0:14:06 if you have one of those, it can double your risk of Alzheimer’s disease. If you have two of them,
    0:14:11 you can go up to a tenfold increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease. When it comes to fish oil,
    0:14:17 particularly fish oil, there does seem to be, and this is, you know, where my publication came from,
    0:14:25 but also there’s a lot of evidence that has shown people with ApoE4 alleles, they don’t tend to have
    0:14:32 as much DHA getting into their brains as people without the alleles. And on top of that, in trials,
    0:14:39 people with mild cognitive decline, for example, if they supplemented with fish oil and they had ApoE4,
    0:14:46 they didn’t have the cognitive benefits that the people that were not ApoE4 had. There was this big
    0:14:52 question in the field as to why that is. And it’s still not entirely known, although I will say
    0:14:57 what my take on that is, and in fact, I’ve, you know, talked to some of the experts in the field as well,
    0:15:04 is that you have to have a higher dose of fish oil for one. And it’s better if it’s in phospholipid
    0:15:10 form. So fish, if you’re eating fish, it’s in phospholipid form, it’s in triglyceride form
    0:15:11 as well.
    0:15:16 Right. If you’re taking capsules, it may not be the case. But if I’m eating my can of sardines in the
    0:15:18 morning, then phospholipid form?
    0:15:23 You’re getting more phospholipid form. Exactly. Now, if you are taking your supplement
    0:15:29 oils, you can actually make phospholipid form, but you have to get to that like two gram dose range.
    0:15:34 That’s when your body is also converting into phospholipid form. And then the other way around
    0:15:40 that is actually consuming a phospholipid form of omega-3. And so that’s something that can be done
    0:15:46 if you’re supplementing with either, you know, krill oil, which I’m not a huge fan of because it’s not
    0:15:50 very concentrated. So you’d have to really take a lot of it. Or you could eat something like salmon
    0:15:55 roe, which is a really high phospholipid concentration of omega-3 fatty acids. And you
    0:16:00 might go, why phospholipid form? Well, it turns out the way your brain, you actually get omega-3 into
    0:16:07 the brain. There’s two ways. The first way doesn’t require phospholipid form. It’s just this omega-3
    0:16:11 is sort of in a free fatty acid form and it diffuses across the membrane and gets into the brain that way.
    0:16:15 The second way actually is through a transport mechanism, and that is phospholipid form.
    0:16:23 And that’s why it seems as though people with ApoE4, their free fatty acid form isn’t going into the
    0:16:27 brain as well because they have breakdown of the blood-brain barrier early, early on.
    0:16:32 ApoE4 tends to lead to early breakdown of the blood-brain barrier. And when your blood-brain
    0:16:38 barrier breaks down, it’s hard for things to kind of just passively diffuse as well. I know that is
    0:16:44 counterintuitive, but without getting into all the crazy molecular and biochemistry involved,
    0:16:49 just take my word on that for the two different forms of omega-3. Or you can read that publication
    0:16:49 as well.
    0:16:57 Okay. Let’s step back for a second and just get into the parental specifics, and then we can zoom out and
    0:17:01 talk about mechanisms and all sorts of stuff. But if you just had to give a couple of bullets
    0:17:08 on the things that you feel confident in having your mom and dad continue doing or taking,
    0:17:12 let’s start with the supplements because, like you said, it’s sort of a
    0:17:17 low-hanging fruit in a sense from a behavioral change perspective. What do you have them doing?
    0:17:21 I guess I’ll kind of zoom out and talk about, you know, I think you listened to a podcast I did with
    0:17:26 Dr. Mark Madsen several years ago, and I mentioned that my dad was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
    0:17:28 In that podcast, yep.
    0:17:35 Yeah. He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2017, and that’s an important context to consider
    0:17:40 like what sort of supplements I’m giving my dad, and also the fact that you have to think about
    0:17:44 compliance. Like what were your parents? Do you have a parent that’ll take a lot of vitamins or a
    0:17:49 few vitamins, right? So with my dad, knowing his disease was Parkinson’s disease, multivitamin was in
    0:17:53 there because that’s already like so important just to cover a lot of bases. You’re getting a lot of
    0:17:58 different, you know, vitamins and minerals. And then it was omega-3, and in fact, it was a high DHA, and he’s
    0:18:05 getting about two grams a day. And there’s a lot of evidence that omega-3 can help with dopaminergic
    0:18:12 transmission, can help with a lot of brain function, particularly as it relates to Parkinson’s disease as well as
    0:18:18 Alzheimer’s disease. So that was the second supplements that he’s, you know, taking. And then the last one that I could
    0:18:26 really get him to take was ubiquinol, which is a reduced form of CoQ10. Now, coenzyme Q10 is actually
    0:18:33 something that we have inside of our cells, and it’s involved in mitochondrial health. So having a
    0:18:39 depleted CoQ10 can lead to mitochondrial toxicity. So taking CoQ10, there’s actually been some early
    0:18:44 studies with even Parkinson’s disease patients showing that supplementing with CoQ10 can be beneficial.
    0:18:51 And he’s actually taken those supplements for many, many years now. And very, I would say surprisingly,
    0:18:59 but also I’m thankful that his Parkinson’s disease has progressed very, very slowly. So it’s been nine
    0:19:07 years, almost 10 years. And he’s really essentially had this Parkinson’s disease limited to one tremor in
    0:19:13 his hand. So that’s great. All I can say is, yeah, it’s great news. And you never really know
    0:19:20 at the end of the day, what is the reason for that. But he’s convinced, I’m convinced, his doctor’s
    0:19:24 convinced that he should keep doing what he’s doing and that it seems to be beneficial. My dad is one of
    0:19:28 those guys that doesn’t like to take a lot of pills. If he would take more, I would give him more.
    0:19:30 If he were willing to take more, what would you give him?
    0:19:37 I would also give him sulforaphane. Definitely tried. He doesn’t want to take more pills.
    0:19:44 So sulforaphane is a compound that is formed when you eat cruciferous vegetables like broccoli,
    0:19:49 cauliflower, for example. And it’s formed from something inside of it called glucoraphanin.
    0:19:55 When you break the plant tissue, when you bite it or chop it up or whatever, it forms sulforaphane.
    0:19:59 So foraphane is not necessarily in the plant itself. It just gets formed when you break the plant tissue.
    0:20:05 That’s a technical thing. So I’m just going to talk about sulforaphane and call it sulforaphane as if
    0:20:11 it’s part of the plant, but it’s not, just so you know. So sulforaphane is something that’s formed
    0:20:17 in these cruciferous vegetables. Broccoli sprouts, the young, young sprout of broccoli, actually is the
    0:20:23 best source of it. It has a hundred times more of that active precursor glucoraphanin than mature
    0:20:26 broccoli. So that’s the best dietary source of it.
    0:20:29 Are you growing your own broccoli sprouts or are you doing off the shelf now?
    0:20:34 I’m off the shelf now. I used to, I used to. It’s work. It’s not that much work,
    0:20:38 but it is work. But you also like, you have to be very fastidious about not having it contaminated.
    0:20:43 And that’s where the real work comes in. But I like it because there are people that can’t afford
    0:20:49 the supplement and this gives them another way to basically get it. Yeah. For cheap.
    0:20:54 The reason I really like sulforaphane and why I want both my parents on it and my mom has been taking it.
    0:20:59 And I think we can talk about that in a minute is because it is the most potent dietary activator of
    0:21:06 this system that we have called NRF2, which is this major system. It’s a transcription factor
    0:21:11 that activates a lot of different genes inside of our body. It activates genes that are involved in
    0:21:16 stress. Basically, it activates a lot of what are called stress response genes. And these are the kind
    0:21:22 of things that are activated when you’re doing stress, stressful things like exercise, or if you
    0:21:25 are fasting. So you really want this pathway to be active.
    0:21:33 Because a little bit of stress, right? It’s like chronic overdose of stress, bad, but little doses of
    0:21:36 stress has this, what would you call it? Hormetic effect?
    0:21:39 Exactly. Am I getting that right?
    0:21:42 You got it. Yeah. You nailed it. Yeah. So essentially, we’re talking about what
    0:21:47 sometimes called eustress or good stress. It’s these small doses of stress where your body’s
    0:21:51 responding to that stress by activating all these beneficial pathways that deal with stress.
    0:21:55 Whether we’re talking about antioxidant pathways, anti-inflammatory pathways,
    0:21:59 pathways involved in clearing out damaged stuff from your cells like autophagy,
    0:22:05 just all sorts of beneficial stuff, right? Those pathways are activated for a longer period of time
    0:22:09 than the acute stress that you’re giving it. So in this case, the sulforaphane is a little bit
    0:22:16 of an acute stress, like polyphenols in general are. So the amount of time that you’re ingesting that
    0:22:21 polyphenol is very small and digesting it. And then the reality is that it’s activating these stress
    0:22:27 response pathways that last on the orders of like 24 to 48 hours, sometimes longer. So you’re having
    0:22:32 this beneficial effect that’s overall beneficial from that little bit of stress. And so sulforaphane
    0:22:38 activates NRF2. And one of the main pathways that it’s activating is increasing glutathione
    0:22:43 production. And it’s been shown in a couple of different human studies that it increases glutathione
    0:22:49 in both plasma, but also in the brain. Glutathione is the major antioxidant that we have in our body.
    0:22:54 And it’s very important in the brain, super important for not only preventing brain aging,
    0:23:01 but also for dealing with dysfunction in the case of acute injury, like traumatic brain injury, or in
    0:23:05 the case of Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease, which are other types of injury on the
    0:23:11 brain. Glutathione plays a big role there. And so I obviously would want my dad to be taking
    0:23:17 sulforaphane. And there’s a supplement out there that I use that has been used in many, like 12 or so
    0:23:22 different studies. And so it’s been shown to be beneficial across the board. And that is something that
    0:23:27 I do give my mom. The reason I gave it to my mom, well, I was kind of hoping… My mom, interestingly,
    0:23:33 has two other types of sort of brain dysfunction problems, but they’re not neurodegenerative in the
    0:23:38 sense of Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease are. It’s kind of like something going wrong in the
    0:23:42 brain and it affects her motor control. So she has tremors. She has essential tremor and she has
    0:23:49 orthostatic tremor. And I have secretly wanted the increase in glutathione to affect those tremors.
    0:23:56 But when I gave the sulforaphane to my mom, because I knew the placebo effect, I did tell her that we
    0:24:02 were using it to detoxify, you know, these chemicals that are associated with plastic, like BPA, because
    0:24:09 that is also something that I’m using sulforaphane for because that Nrf2 pathway does activate what are
    0:24:14 called phase two detoxification enzymes. And it’s been shown to detoxify, even if you’re living in like a
    0:24:19 city like New York or LA, where there’s a lot of air pollution, it’s been shown to detoxify benzene.
    0:24:24 Within 24 hours, people start excreting 60% more benzene from their body. Now, benzene is something
    0:24:26 that is found in air pollution. It’s also in cigarettes.
    0:24:29 Don’t drink your own urine if you’re taking sulforaphane is what you’re saying.
    0:24:36 Definitely don’t do that. But also if you’re living in a polluted place. I tell all my friends in LA,
    0:24:40 I’m like, you have to be taking sulforaphane. Like, it’s just like, it’s a non-negotiable, right?
    0:24:45 So I told her to take the sulforaphane because I wanted her to detoxify BPA because she does
    0:24:50 eat a lot of processed foods and stuff, which are found in plastic. Anyway, so she started taking it
    0:24:55 and she came back to me and told me that it was helping her tremors and that she wanted more.
    0:24:57 How long did that take?
    0:25:05 Not long. It was actually, I think within a week or so, maybe two. It was very quick. It was very quick.
    0:25:11 And she is religious about it. I mean, she comes, I buy it for her and I give her, you know,
    0:25:16 these bottles and she takes two a day and she takes a certain brand called Avmacol. I don’t have any
    0:25:21 affiliation with them. They’re a brand that, again, 12 different published studies using their
    0:25:22 supplement.
    0:25:24 A-V-M-A-C-O-L.
    0:25:30 That’s right. Yeah. And she takes two of their advanced formula. She’s taking that,
    0:25:35 she’s taking the multivitamin, the vitamin D, and she’s also taking the omega-3. She’s doing great.
    0:25:41 What’s funny is that I was able to then get her into CrossFit and I don’t know if it’s because her
    0:25:47 tremors, I think her tremors have lessened a bit. And so she’s been more active and wanting to be more
    0:25:52 active. Like she’s out dancing more. My mom likes to dance. And I mentioned how I really wanted to get
    0:25:58 her into a senior’s CrossFit class and she sees me do it. I have a coach come to my house and do,
    0:26:03 we do CrossFit training at my house. My mom has seen me doing it and she’s been interested in it.
    0:26:08 And I told her that there’s a great senior’s class and I would be willing to, you know,
    0:26:15 pay for it and get her in it. It would be huge. And she’s been doing it now for a couple of months,
    0:26:20 maybe like three or four months. And she goes three times a week and she loves it.
    0:26:25 She loves it. She’s made friends there. Sometimes the coaches take videos and she sends them to me.
    0:26:29 She sends them to her friends. She’s so proud. You know, she’s doing kettlebell swings. She’s
    0:26:36 doing wall squats. I mean, it’s amazing. Go mom. That’s amazing. It’s a very different type of
    0:26:41 atmosphere than your usual CrossFit class would be, right? You’re aware that these are seniors. And so
    0:26:45 they’re not doing, you know, barbell, like squatting, like heavy weights and stuff. There’s,
    0:26:49 they start out with wall squats and then they’re, you know, squatting with just like a really light
    0:26:55 bar and it’s, it’s really great. Let me hop in for a second here. Um, and I want to know if there’s
    0:27:00 anything else to add to that, but we’ve talked about this. You and I are texted a hell of a lot about it,
    0:27:07 that I have Alzheimer’s in my family. I have now have multiple relatives who are moderate to advance
    0:27:14 with respect to Alzheimer’s. So my grandmother disintegrate, terrifying to watch and terrifying
    0:27:21 to imagine yourself experiencing the same thing. And also at least one of them is APOE33 and I’m
    0:27:28 APOE34. So I’m like, well, wait a second, if that is where they are right now, and I’m at hypothetically
    0:27:37 2.5 X greater risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, AD, I should really double down on paying attention
    0:27:43 to as much as possible for myself, certainly for them as well. But the earlier the intervention,
    0:27:50 the better the outcomes generally. So I’ve been looking at all sorts of things and just to reiterate
    0:27:56 a few things you said. So the, on the omega three side of things, just like with sulforaphane, not all
    0:28:01 brands are created equal, right? There’s a lot of garbage floating around out there. Would you say
    0:28:07 neither of us have any affiliation with this company, but I know our mutual friend, Kevin Rose had this
    0:28:14 particular brand tested that I guess it’s one O dot N dot E pure encapsulations. Is that what you have
    0:28:22 your, your parents taking, or did you use a different brand? So, um, with my dad, he is now
    0:28:27 taking the Zymogen brand, which is also very good. And the reason for that is because it’s higher DHA,
    0:28:33 which is what I wanted. My mom is taking the one, both those brands, by the way, are great. They both
    0:28:38 been third-party tested and have very high quality fish oil. And I don’t have affiliation with either of
    0:28:44 them. Yep. So I’ve got my parents on those. I’m taking those. You mentioned lutein and zeaxanthin,
    0:28:49 which is good for quite a few things. Now, for those people who may be interested, and this probably
    0:28:56 won’t help me with my particular presbyopia. So age-related visual decline, particularly with
    0:29:03 near work, reading a book, let’s say, but a reds too, people could check out studies that have been done
    0:29:10 on a reds too. And two of the principal ingredients are lutein and zeaxanthin. So there’s that now also
    0:29:18 have been very, very curious about how to activate some of the pathways that you mentioned. So for a
    0:29:22 fan would be a good option for that. Also looking at, and we don’t have to spend a ton of time on this,
    0:29:27 but exogenous ketones, right? Because ideally, sure. I would have my parents maybe do intermittent
    0:29:33 fasting or some extended fasts. I don’t think that’s going to happen for a million different
    0:29:40 reasons, but perhaps exogenous ketones and have looked at that. This is kind of a work in progress
    0:29:46 I’ve been doing. And I know you have too, lots of self-experimentation, but there are some case
    0:29:50 studies in the literature, one of which you sent to me that are pretty interesting looking at
    0:29:57 administration. In other words, giving an older patient with Alzheimer’s disease, oral
    0:30:04 exogenous ketones, they tend to taste like jet fuel. They’re not tasty, but the effects of at least
    0:30:10 in these case studies are pretty remarkable. Now, granted with the monoester they use in some of these,
    0:30:18 the off the shelf cost per day would be like $150 or something like that, maybe even more. So there’s a
    0:30:23 sort of a cost question, but I’m just going to throw a couple of more things out there that are on my
    0:30:29 mind. So you mentioned the exercise piece. This has been so important for me. So I’ve hired a trainer
    0:30:34 and I realized my parents are kind of sneaky and sometimes a little, I don’t want to say passive
    0:30:37 aggressive, but they’ll say they’re going to do something to please me and then they won’t do it.
    0:30:47 So getting the trainer to actually pick them up at their house is something that I decided to do
    0:30:53 because there are a lot of reasons. Exercise is amazing. One of which is the natural release of
    0:30:58 clotho and people can look this up. I’m hoping that you’ll be able to inject this in the next handful of
    0:31:03 years. We’ll see in humans, but K L O T H O also worth checking out.
    0:31:10 Just a quick thanks to one of our sponsors and we’ll be right back to the show.
    0:31:16 I am always on the hunt for protein sources that don’t require sacrifices in taste or nutrition. I
    0:31:21 don’t want to eat sawdust. I also don’t want a candy bar that’s disguised as a protein bar.
    0:31:27 And that’s why I love the protein bars from today’s sponsor, David. They are my go-to protein source on
    0:31:32 the run. I throw them in my bag whenever I am in doubt that I might be able to get a good source
    0:31:39 of protein. David has 28 grams of protein, 150 calories, and zero grams of sugar. And on top of
    0:31:43 that, David tastes great. Their bars come in six delicious flavors. They’re all we’re trying.
    0:31:49 Adequate protein intake is critical for building and preserving muscle mass, especially as we age.
    0:31:54 And one of the biggest things that you want to pay attention to is counteracting sarcopenia,
    0:31:59 age-related muscle loss. And for that, you need enough protein. When in doubt, up your protein.
    0:32:05 And now you guys, listeners of the Tim Ferriss Show who buy four boxes, get a fifth box for free.
    0:32:09 You can check it out. You can also buy one box at a time. Try them for yourself at
    0:32:16 davidprotein.com slash Tim. Learn all about it. That’s davidprotein.com slash Tim to get a free box
    0:32:22 with a four-box purchase or simply learn more. Check it out. Davidprotein.com slash Tim.
    0:32:29 Anything else that you would add to that or any commentary you want to
    0:32:33 sprinkle in? Am I missing any criticals? Multivitamin. Yeah.
    0:32:39 There’s commentary, but we can get into that if you want to go dive into the why the ketone esters are
    0:32:44 beneficial and why the exercise is beneficial. We can go into that because I love talking about it.
    0:32:51 Yeah. So this is going to be a conversation, right? Just between you and me. That’s how I treat all
    0:32:56 these things. And I’m very self-interested because I think the personal is the most universal. Maybe
    0:33:02 that’s just an excuse to make this all about what I want. But we have been texting also because I told
    0:33:08 you I’ve been thinking about doing a 14-day fast. And actually, I ratcheted that back from doing a 30-day
    0:33:17 fast. And I’ve done 10 days before water only. I’ve done lots of seven days. And part of the reason is I
    0:33:24 think I would be better equipped now to do longer fasts because of the intermittent fasting I’ve been
    0:33:29 doing. And this ties into the conversation around the parents because what I’ve noticed
    0:33:36 is, for instance, doing 16-8 fasting, which was, I’m so sorry, the scientist you mentioned before,
    0:33:40 whose podcast interview I listened to on your podcast, what was his name again?
    0:33:41 Dr. Mark Mattson.
    0:33:48 Yeah. Mark Mattson. Amazing, amazing scientist. Fantastic conversation. A lot of seminal work
    0:33:54 related to intermittent fasting. So 16-8, what does that actually mean? I did this today. I’ve done this
    0:34:02 most days now, which is basically eating between, for me, it’s like 2 p.m. and 10 p.m. There are
    0:34:08 arguments that it should be shifted earlier, like noon to 8 p.m. or something like that. But socially,
    0:34:13 just practically, again, coming back to compliance, like the good system you do being better than the
    0:34:19 perfect system you don’t, generally it’s like 2 to let’s say 9 p.m. is when I eat and then I fast the
    0:34:24 rest of the time. And for the first like five to seven days, pretty grumpy, kind of pissy. I’m not
    0:34:29 going to lie. I sent some emails that I probably shouldn’t have. But then once I adapted, I did a
    0:34:34 recent set of labs and they’re my best set of labs that I’ve seen. I can’t solely attribute it to the
    0:34:41 intermittent fasting. But the best set of labs I’ve had in ages on things that were very hard to move
    0:34:47 prior. I also did an oral glucose tolerance test and my sort of insulin sensitivity and glucose
    0:34:53 management, the best it’s been in ages. So I was like, okay, that’s really interesting. The last time
    0:34:57 I did a seven-day fast, it was kind of brutal. I hadn’t done one in a few years and I don’t think my
    0:35:05 metabolic machinery was ready for the task. Very unpleasant. But I have some chronic inflammation
    0:35:10 or at least chronic pain in my low back. And after doing that seven-day fast, I had four weeks of zero
    0:35:16 symptoms. And that’s the first time in three years that that’s been the case. So I was like, okay,
    0:35:21 that’s pretty interesting. And so I’ve ended up harassing you with all sorts of questions such as,
    0:35:27 well, what if I had a little bit of heavy cream in my coffee in the morning? So it’s kind of dirty
    0:35:33 fasting. But if I did that, what am I accepting as a compromise or a penalty, if anything? Because
    0:35:39 then I think of, say, Longo’s work and others looking at fast-mimicking diets where I’m like,
    0:35:45 well, wait a second. These people are doing, let’s just say, five days of fast-mimicking dieting
    0:35:48 per month for three months straight. And they seem to have all these benefits
    0:35:55 that may be of lower magnitude, but mirror water fasting on some level. But they’re consuming a
    0:36:00 few hundred calories, let’s just say for simplicity, per day of those five days of quote-unquote fasting.
    0:36:05 If you look at the actual meal composition, it ends up being very low-calorie keto, basically.
    0:36:12 Very low-calorie keto with very low protein, like 10% or less, avoiding animal products. That’s
    0:36:18 the basic way that I’ve been thinking of it. So I was like, well, should I do something like
    0:36:23 Wilhelmina in Germany, who have, again, quote-unquote fasted thousands of people,
    0:36:29 but they do give them bone broth, a little bit of juice. It’s akin to the fast-mimicking diet,
    0:36:37 but they’ll do that with people for 30, 60, 90 days. Or am I better off doing shorter water fasts,
    0:36:43 or maybe even a 14-day water fast? And a lot of the questions came down to, I know this is mouthful,
    0:36:48 but as you know, I’ve been thinking about this nonstop. I was up until 2 a.m. this morning reading
    0:36:55 really, really old stuff out of the Soviet Union on psychiatric clinics, fasting patients for
    0:37:00 schizophrenia. So that tells you metabolic psychiatry also goes back a long, long, long time,
    0:37:03 not to mention ketogenic diet for epilepsy, right? So there are a lot of similarities.
    0:37:10 But if I want the benefits, as many benefits as possible, with the least pain possible,
    0:37:18 which includes not losing a ton of muscle tissue, which is not always the same thing as lean body
    0:37:25 mass, what should I do, right? That’s kind of the open question. And that is a huge, huge mouthful.
    0:37:33 Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. But where is your current thinking when it relates to all of this
    0:37:38 stuff? And I said earlier at the very beginning that it ties into my parents. Why is that? Because
    0:37:46 when we looked at some of my relatives and I got my docs to come in and do like a real proper full
    0:37:52 workup, looking at all sorts of things that normally wouldn’t be tested, absolutely some metabolic
    0:37:58 syndrome, right? In the sense that they’re highly, highly insulin insensitive, like insulin off the
    0:38:02 charts. And it’s like, okay, well, this has been going on for years to get to this point.
    0:38:10 And Alzheimer’s is sometimes called type 3 diabetes. And it’s like, okay, well, if I can’t help them,
    0:38:14 at least I want to try to help myself and other people who might be listening at an early enough
    0:38:16 stage. So how do you think about all this stuff?
    0:38:23 Well, there’s a lot to talk about here. And I think we got to kind of…
    0:38:25 Yeah, chew on one bit at a time.
    0:38:29 Right. Let’s chew on one bit at a time and zoom out for a minute and talk about this intermittent
    0:38:34 fasting concept. And why do people want to do intermittent fasting? What are the benefits that
    0:38:40 they’re looking for? Now, you mentioned some metabolic benefits that you had noticed after
    0:38:44 doing your intermittent fasting. So there’s lots of different types of intermittent fasting.
    0:38:48 you’ve talked about, you mentioned the 16-8. So essentially, you’re talking about not eating
    0:38:54 food for a period of time. And that period of time, you know, can either be 16 hours, it can
    0:38:59 be 24 hours, it can be longer, in which case it would not be an intermittent fast, it would be
    0:39:04 more prolonged fast, which you also talked about. But with respect to the intermittent fasting,
    0:39:10 there are a few things that happen. And there are a few reasons why people like to do intermittent
    0:39:14 fasting. First and foremost, I think most people like doing intermittent fasting is because they
    0:39:18 want to actually lose weight. And the weight that they want to lose is not necessarily their lean
    0:39:23 body mass, they actually want to lose their fat mass, right? So they want to lose fat. And that’s a big
    0:39:29 reason why people do intermittent fasting. Well, it turns out that intermittent fasting is more of a tool
    0:39:35 for weight loss. And what I mean by that is that there have been multiple studies now that have looked at
    0:39:41 different types of intermittent fasting in sort of a community dwelling aspect where people are just
    0:39:46 kind of free to eat the way they’re going to eat, but they’re supposed to be practicing intermittent
    0:39:52 fasting. And what it’s been discovered is that naturally people end up eating about 200 fewer
    0:39:57 calories per day when they’re doing some form of intermittent fasting. So if they’re eating all their
    0:40:01 food within an 8 or 10-hour period, for example, usually they’ll eat their food within a 10-hour
    0:40:07 period, and then they’ll fast for 14 hours. If they do that, they end up actually eating 200 fewer
    0:40:12 calories. And so they end up performing what’s called caloric restriction, which we know can lead
    0:40:16 to weight loss. And so a lot of the weight loss actually comes from reducing calorie intake.
    0:40:21 But that doesn’t necessarily mean that everything that’s beneficial from intermittent fasting comes
    0:40:27 down to calories because it doesn’t. But the weight loss definitely seems to come down to the calories
    0:40:33 because if you keep calories the same and then have people do intermittent fasting or not intermittent
    0:40:39 fasting, they won’t lose the weight. But they will have a whole host of metabolic benefits. You
    0:40:44 mentioned glucose regulation improvements. I mean, you know, fasting glucose, postprandial glucose,
    0:40:51 HbA1c, which is a long-term marker of glucose regulation. They’re, you know, lipids are more favorable.
    0:40:56 And then they have improvements in blood pressure, for example. That’s another big one that people
    0:41:01 get with a more of a longer type of intermittent fasting. So they’re fasting more like 18 hours and
    0:41:06 eating their food within like a six-hour window. That’s another benefit. Now, you go even further,
    0:41:10 and I know this is something you’re very interested in. So beyond, you know, metabolic benefits and people
    0:41:15 want to get then, they want to get into what’s called ketosis. So they want to have, they want to be
    0:41:19 making ketones, these, you know, things that we’re talking about earlier with respect to taking an
    0:41:25 exogenous ketone ester. Well, you make something naturally when you start to actually burn fat as
    0:41:31 energy, you start to make something called beta-hydroxybutyrate. But it takes about 12 hours or
    0:41:36 so. It depends on the person. It depends on how heavy of a carb diet they eat or how physically active
    0:41:41 they are. It can be a range, right? So if someone’s doing a more ketogenic type of diet, they can
    0:41:46 actually deplete their liver glycogen quicker than 12 hours. It might even cut it down to like
    0:41:50 eight. If they’re physically active on top of that, you might go down to like even six or something.
    0:41:55 Like, so there’s a big range here, right? But for a standard person on like a normal diet,
    0:42:00 they’re going to take around 12 hours before they start to deplete their liver glycogen and then start
    0:42:05 to immobilize fatty acids from their adipose tissue and use that as energy. And when you start to do that,
    0:42:09 then you start to get into ketosis. Your body starts to then make beta-hydroxybutyrate,
    0:42:16 the major circulating ketone. Why do people want that in their system? Because it’s not just a very
    0:42:21 energetically favorable source of energy. What I mean by that is that it takes less energy to use
    0:42:27 beta-hydroxybutyrate to make energy than it does to use glucose, for example. It takes more energy to
    0:42:29 actually use glucose. So it’s more energetically favorable.
    0:42:35 It’s a clean fuel. Yeah. Also, BHB, the beta-hydroxybutyrate, as I understand it, I mean,
    0:42:41 highly anti-inflammatory effects as well, right? Exactly. That was the next point I was going to
    0:42:46 make is that it’s called a signaling molecule. So your body knows that it’s in this stress mode,
    0:42:51 okay? There’s no food. It’s food scarcity time, right? And this is something that it’s evolutionarily
    0:42:57 tapped into our system, into our DNA, where times of food scarcity, when we’re not eating,
    0:43:04 our body switches into ketosis, beta-hydroxybutyrates produce, and it signals to these other genes to
    0:43:09 basically make more of something beneficial. So it’s been shown to reduce inflammation.
    0:43:16 It depresses something called the inflammasome, which causes inflammation. It’s an H-DAC inhibitor,
    0:43:23 so it’s a histone deacetylase inhibitor. So it’s globally affecting gene expression in such a way that
    0:43:29 it reduces genes that are involved in making oxidative stress. It actually activates brain-derived
    0:43:33 neurotrophic factor. That’s the beneficial neurotrophic compound that’s made in the brain.
    0:43:38 That exercise also activates as well. So it’s doing all these beneficial things, right?
    0:43:43 And the other thing that it’s doing is it’s getting into the brain. It’s being used as a very
    0:43:49 great source of energy. And so you have this sort of, you know, bypass for glucose, where the glucose can
    0:43:54 then be shunted to be used to make glutathione, that very important antioxidant I talked about
    0:44:00 earlier that sulforaphane activates. Well, it turns out when you give your body ketones or your body’s
    0:44:06 making ketones, your brain actually consumes a lot of that. There’ve been, you know, tracer studies that
    0:44:12 have looked at that. And what happens is because neurons are now using the beta-hydroxybutyrate as
    0:44:17 energy, glucose is no longer needed. And so that glucose that is there is then used to make
    0:44:24 NADPH, which is a precursor to make glutathione. And so it’s called glucose sparing. You get this
    0:44:30 glucose sparing effect. And so that’s another reason why people are interested in intermittent fasting.
    0:44:34 And then another main reason, and there’s many others, I’m not going to like touch on everything,
    0:44:43 but the other main reason is it activates repair processes. And what I mean by repair processes is
    0:44:48 to be in repair mode, you have to be in more of a catabolic state. And we were talking about this
    0:44:53 earlier. People get so freaked out by the word catabolism. Oh yeah. Last night when I was walking
    0:45:00 around New York City, we were talking about this, the catabolism. Right. And I think even over the last
    0:45:05 few years, intermittent fasting has kind of gotten a bad rap because people now equate it with, oh,
    0:45:10 loss of muscle mass. I’m going to be catabolic. Well, in order to be in a repair mode, you actually
    0:45:18 do need to be in a catabolic sort of mode. These repair systems are so important for cleaning up all
    0:45:23 the garbage that’s inside of our cells. And that can be things like protein aggregates. These are things
    0:45:28 that lead to aggregation, you know, like alpha-signuclein, which is involved in Parkinson’s,
    0:45:34 amyloid beta aggregates, which is involved in Alzheimer’s disease. It’s not the cause. It’s
    0:45:38 like the cause and the symptom. It’s like both. It’s involved in Alzheimer’s disease. And then
    0:45:43 aggregates in our cardiovascular system that play a role in cardiovascular disease. But it also
    0:45:50 cleans out even damaged little, or what are called organelles. And so mitochondria or organelle and
    0:45:56 our organelles get damaged. So you want to be able to repair that damage. And this process of autophagy
    0:46:01 is the process that does that. And, you know, there’s lots of different types of autophagy.
    0:46:06 So if it’s a mitochondria repairing damage to itself, it’s mitophagy. But for all this stuff to be active,
    0:46:11 you have to be in that more catabolic state, which can be induced by not eating, can also be induced by
    0:46:16 like heavy endurance exercise as well. Okay. So talking about those sort of outcomes that people
    0:46:20 are interested in, those different endpoints that people are interested in achieving, I think
    0:46:26 something that you’re specifically interested in is the metabolic effects of intermittent fasting as
    0:46:32 well as the repair processes like the autophagy. Yeah, for sure. And that’s why I was asking because
    0:46:40 I don’t really look, I’m as vain as the next person. I like looking less fat if I can, but it’s not my
    0:46:49 main driver. It’s mental acuity and hopefully staving off on some level things like neurodegenerative
    0:46:56 disease and even cancer possibly, which has been part of the reason I’ve done a lot of these extended
    0:47:03 water fasts, which is, I realize there are a couple of hops here in terms of speculation, but it seems
    0:47:08 plausible that you might zap, you know, punch a couple of precancerous cells in the nuts by doing
    0:47:14 that. Not only does autophagy play a role in preventing Parkinson’s disease, but also Alzheimer’s
    0:47:19 disease as well. Again, this has been shown in many animal studies. We know that autophagy plays a role
    0:47:25 in clearing away the amyloid beta plaques that are involved in Alzheimer’s disease. And yes, there are
    0:47:29 some people that have amyloid beta plaques that don’t get Alzheimer’s disease. They may be the more
    0:47:34 resilient non-APOE4 type of person, but we do know that many, many people do get Alzheimer’s disease
    0:47:39 with amyloid plaques. And in fact, people that have, again, the SNPs in what’s called the amyloid
    0:47:45 precursor protein, APP, that leads to amyloid beta plaque buildup, they get early onset Alzheimer’s
    0:47:51 disease. So autophagy plays an important role in clearing away those plaques. And I will say what we
    0:47:58 don’t have a lot of evidence on is like, what’s the minimal effect of fasting dose to activate
    0:48:01 autophagy, right? God, I wish we had this.
    0:48:06 That, right. I think what we do know in humans from like some of these old studies is that you do see
    0:48:15 some signal of autophagy activation after 24, 48 hours in humans. Now, does that mean that that is
    0:48:22 the only amount of time it takes to activate autophagy? No. So most humans are probably doing,
    0:48:28 you know, anywhere between a 12 to 16 hour nightly fast, right? There’s a period of time when we’re not
    0:48:32 eating and that is when we’re sleeping a little bit before bed, right? Autophagy still happens in
    0:48:39 people. We just aren’t measuring it because we don’t have sensitive tools yet. And so it’s not that
    0:48:44 I don’t think a 16 hour fast doesn’t act. I believe it does in humans. I believe there’s some autophagy
    0:48:51 going on. It’s probably not that much. But if you go into that, you know, 48 hour fast, then you’re
    0:48:54 really starting to get more robust activation of autophagy.
    0:48:59 So you mentioned sleep and I’ve been looking, trying to look at Alzheimer’s from every possible
    0:49:08 angle and found literature looking at disruption of sleep architecture in patients with Alzheimer’s
    0:49:16 disease and the possible application of Xyrem, I believe it is, which is another, it’s a brand name
    0:49:23 in a bifurcated schedule for GHB, gamma hydroxybutyrate, which you have to be very careful with. It’s a party drug.
    0:49:27 People die of it because it suppresses respiration. The person who bought my apartment in San Francisco
    0:49:35 died of a GHB overdose. But it actually is a tremendously interesting compound for increasing,
    0:49:42 I think it’s deep wave sleep specifically, which does what? It helps the cleanup crew, right? To do its work
    0:49:50 and to actually take out the garbage cellularly. And so if I could wave a magic wand, I would have my
    0:49:56 relatives on something like Xyrem might actually be a different type of sleep medication like the Nora
    0:50:04 class. Nora might be Dora. I would also look at, and this is something obviously not suitable for most
    0:50:10 elderly people, but potentially lower dose psilocybin or psilocin. And there are, there is some actually
    0:50:17 very interesting, I don’t want to call them speculative, hypothetical applications of that to Alzheimer’s
    0:50:23 disease, which you can find on PubMed. And like the, from a mechanistic perspective, they’re, they’re super,
    0:50:29 super interesting. So I just want to double click on the sleep because that is such a critical component,
    0:50:34 whether you’re fasting or not, to try to ensure that your sleep architecture is not hyper disrupted,
    0:50:39 which can be the case with lots of different types of sleep medications that you might take.
    0:50:43 And if you have really bad insomnia, it’s like, okay, you can do all of these other things,
    0:50:51 but boy, oh boy, it would make a lot of sense to try to fix sleep whenever possible.
    0:50:57 Great. I mean, yeah, so true. This low wave sleep does activate the glimplatic system,
    0:51:01 which is cleaning out the amyloid beta aggregates as well. And the last thing I kind of want to mention
    0:51:06 is that you were talking about the intermittent fasting and more prolonged fasting and the muscle
    0:51:11 mass loss or lean body mass, which people equate with muscle mass, which it’s not,
    0:51:15 you know, there’s a lot of things going on. So, so the thing is when people are doing intermittent
    0:51:19 fasting, I mentioned they eat fewer calories, which means they’re eating less meals. They’re
    0:51:23 eating fewer meals. They’re not eating as many meals. And so what ends up happening is people
    0:51:29 lower their protein intake. And that’s an important signal for, you know, maintaining muscle mass and
    0:51:33 certainly growing muscle mass as well. So it increases muscle protein synthesis, which is important.
    0:51:38 If people are engaged in resistance training and doing intermittent fasting, they’re not losing
    0:51:43 muscle mass. And in fact, they can even gain muscle mass a little bit, not much, but they can gain it
    0:51:49 too. So I think the key here is that if you’re doing an intermittent type of fast, like a 16-8 where
    0:51:54 you’re fasting for 16 hours, that’s really not a long, long fast. There’s not a lot of concern with
    0:51:59 losing muscle mass if you’re, you know, resistance training. Now, a more prolonged type of fast,
    0:52:06 you’re talking about 14 days, that’s a long fast. And definitely you’re going to be losing some muscle
    0:52:13 mass no matter what. Now, how much you lose depends on how, I guess, if you can resistance train lightly
    0:52:19 while you’re fasting, that would be huge because you would be then activating muscle protein synthesis
    0:52:25 through another, you know, signal, which is not protein, it’s mechanical force, right? So that,
    0:52:30 I think, would be really important for preventing the loss of a lot of muscle mass. But what is
    0:52:36 interesting is that you do lose lean body mass, a lot of it, when you are doing a prolonged fast like
    0:52:41 that. And looking at, you know, the old literature and some of the literature that’s been done,
    0:52:48 a lot of water, up to 10 pounds of, like, water rate. It’s just crazy. You lose that and your organs shrink.
    0:52:54 And this is something that’s been also shown in animal studies and also by Dr. Walter Longo many years ago.
    0:52:59 He’s shown in animal studies, prolonged type of fasting actually causes organs to shrink
    0:53:06 because a lot of the damaged cells, not only is autophagy getting activated and you’re cleaning out damage
    0:53:13 within a cell, but cells that are so damaged that autophagy can’t even fix them. They actually undergo
    0:53:20 death, cell death. And so you end up getting a lot of cells that die. And then what happens is during the
    0:53:26 refeeding phase, and this is key, the refeeding phase is the growth phase. And this is when you regrow
    0:53:31 organs. It’s when your muscle mass comes back. You can, you know, go back, get your muscle mass gains back.
    0:53:36 And so having that refeeding phase is really important and getting the right nutrients like
    0:53:42 protein, for example, is key for that refeeding phase. But you also lose fat during that fast and
    0:53:47 you’re losing visceral fat. And you had brought this up last night when we were talking and it was,
    0:53:51 I like did some reading on it because it was like, oh, it made perfect sense because your organs are
    0:53:55 shrinking. You’re losing a lot of cells in your organs. You’re also losing some of the visceral fat
    0:53:57 that surrounds the organs, right?
    0:53:59 I can get misclassified.
    0:54:06 Exactly. It gets misclassified as lean body mass. And so you look at this lean body mass and all you
    0:54:11 think about is muscle. Well, it turns out muscle is a small part of that. There’s a lot of other stuff
    0:54:17 that’s going into that lean body mass. So yeah, it’s a pretty big undertaking, a 14-day fast.
    0:54:23 But I’ll say this, and this kind of like goes into what you mentioned about the fasting mimicking diet
    0:54:28 and perhaps even adding, you know, cream. We can talk about that as well. I do think, I mean,
    0:54:33 the fasting mimicking diet, you’re not going to get the same amount of autophagy that you would get
    0:54:39 if you did a five-day fast, water fast, because it’s just impossible. You’re getting some protein,
    0:54:43 you’re getting some amino acids. That’s activating mTOR that shuts down autophagy. You’re getting energy,
    0:54:50 ATP. There’s a ratio called the ATP to AMP ratio, which you want it to be low to activate something
    0:54:55 called AMP kinase for autophagy to happen. And so when you’re eating, when you’re eating heavy cream or
    0:55:01 eating whatever, fill in the blank, any type of calories, you’re changing that ratio. And so that
    0:55:07 AMP kinase is not getting activated as robustly. Now, the amount of inactivation of those pathways,
    0:55:12 which then will inactivate autophagy, depends on how much you’re feeding, right? How many calories that
    0:55:14 you’re eating, how much of that is amino acids.
    0:55:21 specifically leucine, right? In the case of Longo, like really trying to minimize leucine as an
    0:55:23 activator of mTOR and so on.
    0:55:30 Yes, exactly. Yeah. So I think for the cream, if you’re trying to do 16-8, if someone is trying to
    0:55:38 do 16-8 on a daily basis, and it’s a non-negotiable for having an earlier feeding window because social,
    0:55:42 just everything compliance-wise isn’t going to work. And you have to do it later, which means you have to
    0:55:49 wake up and still be fasting in the morning, right? Then you either like have to love black coffee,
    0:55:55 learn to love it, or try maybe MCT powder, MCT oil, because then you’re not getting the amino acids in
    0:56:01 there to activate the mTOR. But you can do like a small, maybe like a tablespoon of it. And so you’ll
    0:56:07 just get a little bit of depression of autophagy, but not much. That would be my recommendation.
    0:56:14 Just a quick thanks to one of our sponsors, and we’ll be right back to the show.
    0:56:20 As many of you know, for the last few years, I’ve been sleeping on a midnight luxe mattress from today’s
    0:56:25 sponsor, Helix Sleep. I also have one in the guest bedroom downstairs, and feedback from friends has
    0:56:30 always been fantastic. It’s something they comment on without any prompting from me whatsoever.
    0:56:36 I also recently had a chance to test the Helix Sunset Elite in a new guest bedroom, which I
    0:56:41 sometimes sleep in, and I picked it for its very soft but supportive feel to help with some lower
    0:56:46 back pain that I’ve had. The Sunset Elite delivers exceptional comfort while putting the right support
    0:56:51 in the right spots. It is made with five tailored foam layers, including a base layer with full perimeter
    0:56:56 zoned lumbar support, right where I need it, and middle layers with premium foam and microcoils
    0:57:03 that create a soft contouring feel. Helix offers a 100-night sleep trial, fast, free shipping,
    0:57:10 and a 15-year warranty. So check it all out. And now you can get 27% off anything on their website,
    0:57:17 so site-wide. So just go to helixsleep.com slash tim. One more time, helixsleep.com slash tim.
    0:57:20 With Helix, better sleep starts now.
    0:57:29 I also want to clarify for folks listening, just to really make it specific. When I have
    0:57:34 had, I just like saying dirty fasting, I didn’t realize that was an expression. I just think it’s
    0:57:41 some feels, it feels fun, like a dirty martini. So dirty fasting is kind of cheating in this way,
    0:57:45 but when I do that, which is not all the time, I usually have black coffee or tea or something like
    0:57:53 that. But it is heavy cream, which is almost entirely fat. It is not creamer that you would
    0:57:59 just pull off the shelf. It is not half and half. It is heavy cream, which just from a macronutrient
    0:58:06 perspective is very, very, very different. And you can really overdo it on the calories also. So it’s just
    0:58:13 like liquid fat effectively. But the MCT powder is a good idea. I tell you what, let’s, if you’re open to it,
    0:58:20 let’s shift gears a little bit. I will just say, I wish somebody, nobody’s going to do this, but would
    0:58:27 somehow get the ethics board, IRB, et cetera, to approve long-term human studies again in fasting.
    0:58:32 That would be great because you used to be allowed to do it. There are case studies of people who literally
    0:58:39 fasted for 300 plus days. I mean, like fat, what is it? 9,000 calories per pound. Like there’s like,
    0:58:46 you can do a lot of that fat. So we’ll see if I do 14 days. If I can do 14 days and I might just go to
    0:58:52 30, but then the refeeding gets really tricky. Yeah. I think people are concerned with gallstones.
    0:58:58 So when you don’t eat for a period of time, long period of time, then you’re not stimulating the
    0:59:05 gallbladder and the gallstone risk increases, which is what I think is the big concern with the long,
    0:59:11 long fast. But I mean, if you’re doing something like that once a year, I don’t know if it’s that
    0:59:15 big of a deal. Yeah. I mean, that’s why I was doing a seven day fast once a year for a long time. And then
    0:59:21 I took a break for a few years and I did a seven day water fast and it was so incredibly unpleasant.
    0:59:26 And I had orthostatic hypotension where I’d stand up and I felt like I was going to fall over.
    0:59:32 And my vision started to get funny and I was like, you know what, maybe this isn’t for me. But I think
    0:59:42 it’s because my machinery just wasn’t developed for that. Having seen really stark differences in
    0:59:51 my mental acuity and sustained focus with the intermittent fasting, I’m like, okay, I feel like
    0:59:56 doing intermittent fasting, which part of my reason behaviorally for my interest in that also is that
    1:00:03 getting people to change their diet is fucking hard, meaning their diet composition, the food they eat.
    1:00:09 So if you can just say, Hey, look, keep eating whatever you want, same thing, but you have to fit
    1:00:16 it within this window. It’s an interesting option B that might work for people who otherwise aren’t going
    1:00:22 to follow a paleo diet or whatever. But if you do the IF and then what I’ve done is like, all right,
    1:00:29 do the IF. Maybe if you have some grains or in my case, legumes and stuff, okay, fine. And then shift
    1:00:36 to a mostly ketogenic diet for a period of time. Then I feel like you’re pretty well teed up for a longer
    1:00:42 water only fast. Maybe you supplement with electrolytes. This gets into all sorts of controversial
    1:00:48 territory, but if you’re okay with, let’s talk about training for a minute because, and I’ll, I’ll force
    1:00:56 a really awkward segue maybe, which is one thing I noticed is that my ability to do zone two training,
    1:01:01 let’s just for simplicity sake, say that for people that’s you’re on a stationary bike or a bike
    1:01:09 stationary is just easier to keep consistent. And you’re, you’re cycling for 60 minutes at a wattage
    1:01:15 and a speed that leads you to the point where you could have a conversation with someone on the phone
    1:01:21 in short full sentences, but you don’t really want to, right? That’s like the talk test. Intermittent
    1:01:29 fasting plus ketosis really helps by zone two. And then this leads into the question of just training
    1:01:34 in general. So I have to click on this. What type of exercise reduces heart aging by 20 years? Do you want
    1:01:42 to start there or do you want to start with VO2 max? We can start with VO2 max maybe because they kind
    1:01:48 of lead into each other and people might, you know, going, what is VO2 max? It’s essentially a
    1:01:53 cardiorespiratory fitness. It’s calculated by VO2 max, which is essentially the maximum amount of oxygen
    1:02:01 you can take up during maximal exercise. And what’s so fascinating about that is it’s a really important
    1:02:06 predictor of longevity. So there have now been enough studies that have come out looking at
    1:02:12 cardiorespiratory fitness in the, in the sense of VO2 max and how people with a higher
    1:02:17 cardiorespiratory fitness have a five-year increased life expectancy compared to people with a low
    1:02:21 cardiorespiratory fitness. In fact, if you have a low cardiorespiratory fitness and you go anywhere
    1:02:26 above that, like from low to low normal, it’s associated with a two-year increased life expectancy.
    1:02:34 And people with a low cardiorespiratory fitness actually have higher all-cause mortality that’s
    1:02:40 comparable or worse than people with known diseases like type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease or
    1:02:47 smokers, for example. So in other words, being sedentary is a disease and we need to think about
    1:02:53 it as a disease. And we should be trying to train to improve our VO2 max. And that is something that
    1:02:58 should be in our minds. And I say this because like just having this conversation that you and I are
    1:03:05 having right now, it takes about 11 milliliters of oxygen per minute per kilogram body weight just to
    1:03:11 have this conversation. Now just sit still and just breathe. It takes about three milliliters of oxygen per
    1:03:18 minute per kilogram body weight. And that’s important because as we’re aging, we’re sort of heading towards
    1:03:23 this cliff of VO2 max. Our VO2 max goes down as we age just naturally. Even if you’re training and doing
    1:03:29 everything, it goes down. And once you get to that cliff, everything becomes a maximal effort. Like
    1:03:34 talking, you’re out of breath. You know, carrying groceries to your car from the store, you’re just
    1:03:38 out of breath. Everything is a maximal effort and you don’t want to be there. So you want to like start
    1:03:43 from a higher up point so that when you’re going down, that cliff is much further away. And that’s where
    1:03:49 the training comes in because you want to sort of, you want to find a training program that’s going to
    1:03:54 improve that cardiorespiratory fitness. And that’s where you talked about zone two training. That’s the
    1:04:01 kind of what I would call moderate intensity exercise. So you’re able to sort of the talk test. I like the
    1:04:07 talk test because heart rate is so dependent on the person’s fitness level. But let’s just say on
    1:04:13 average, generally people are, they’re not at like 75 or 80% max heart rate. They’re kind of below that
    1:04:19 on average. Now, some people may actually be above that, but the talk test is great because you can
    1:04:24 have a conversation, you’re breathy. You don’t want to have a conversation, but you can. So we know that
    1:04:30 people that are doing that moderate intensity type of training, if they do the standard guidelines of
    1:04:35 physical activity, which are about two and a half hours a week of moderate intensity physical activity,
    1:04:41 people that do that for two months, 40% of those people still can’t improve their VO2 max.
    1:04:43 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just different gears.
    1:04:47 Well, unless they actually add in high intensity interval training.
    1:04:53 And that’s where I kind of get into this. I think people should be doing vigorous intensity exercise.
    1:04:58 That’s the type of exercise where you’re unable to talk, right? So you, you can’t have a conversation
    1:05:02 because you’re going, you’re going harder. Your heart rate is about 80, 85%, you know,
    1:05:09 it’s above 80% max heart rate. That type of exercise has been shown to improve VO2 max,
    1:05:12 especially if you’re doing sort of what’s called high intensity interval training. As you know,
    1:05:17 you’ve, you’ve talked about this a lot as well. You’re doing sort of these intervals of going
    1:05:22 more vigorous intensity exercise. And then you have recovery periods where your heart rate goes down.
    1:05:27 So there’s been a variety of different protocols out there that have been shown to improve the VO2 max.
    1:05:32 If you do them, generally speaking, what’s happening is you’re putting a stronger stress
    1:05:39 on your cardiovascular system. So on your muscular system, even on your brain. So the adaptations are
    1:05:44 greater. One of those adaptations is increasing your stroke volume. So being able to like basically
    1:05:49 transport oxygen to tissues faster. And that’s an adaptation that happens when you’re going at a
    1:05:51 harder, when you’re training at a harder intensity.
    1:05:53 What do you do personally? What’s your hit look like?
    1:06:01 I do a lot of hit. So my training is three days a week. I do some sort of CrossFit training
    1:06:08 that involves high intensity interval training with it as well. And the high intensity interval training
    1:06:13 will either be on a rowing machine, or it’ll be on a stationary bike or assault bike, or it’ll be like
    1:06:21 a skier, like those skiers or jumping rope. And I also do longer intervals. So I’ll do the Norwegian
    1:06:27 four by four. So that’s where I do on a stationary bike or do it on the rowing machine actually as well.
    1:06:32 I do four minutes of as hard as I can go and maintain for that entire four minutes. So this is obviously not
    1:06:38 an all out 30 second sprint. This is, I’m just working hard, as hard as I can and maintain that for
    1:06:43 four minutes. And then you recover for three minutes and then you do it four times. I’m thinking
    1:06:46 of a variation I do sometimes with my husband. I recover for four minutes because we’re switching
    1:06:52 on the rower. So I sometimes do a little bit longer recovery. But that Norwegian four by four,
    1:06:56 where you’re doing as hard as you can for four minutes and maintain that intensity for the four
    1:07:00 minutes, and then you recover for three minutes, you do that four times. That’s been shown to be one of
    1:07:04 the best ways to improve VO2 max. But you can also do one minute on, one minute off, which I’ve also
    1:07:10 done. So, you know, you do that 10 times, it’s more like a 20 minute workout. That’s also been
    1:07:16 shown to improve VO2 max, but also even doing something like 20 seconds on 10 seconds off, like
    1:07:22 a Tabata. Again, it’s been shown. I do all of these, by the way, and I do variations of them depending on
    1:07:29 the week. Most of my exercise is high intensity interval training, CrossFit training, which incorporates,
    1:07:33 you know, it’s more dynamic. So it’s including like strength training stuff, but it’s like more
    1:07:39 high intensity. And then I do a couple of runs. I do like, you know, two 30 minute runs a week,
    1:07:42 sometimes three. And that’s more of my zone two stuff.
    1:07:49 That’s a nice roster. I’ll share just for people who might be curious, some of my goals and program
    1:07:58 at the moment. So I’m about to turn 48 and feel good overall, but have realized that I really hate
    1:08:03 endurance training, generally speaking. So I’ve neglected that and specifically have neglected the
    1:08:08 stuff that makes me think I want to puke into a bucket, i.e. VO2 max training. The zone two is
    1:08:13 like, listen to a podcast. Maybe I have like a slightly breathy conversation. Like it’s pretty
    1:08:20 chill. Watch something on the Netflix, you know, it’s pretty straightforward. VO2 max, specifically
    1:08:24 chatting with Peter Atiyah. I’m doing the zone two, which I do either on a stationary bike or on a
    1:08:30 treadmill. Typically with a rucksack at a lower incline, I found that when I had the speed too high,
    1:08:35 incline too high, I ended up getting lower back pain just from a like really long stride with my
    1:08:42 and then for the VO2 max doing the four by four that you described. And I think I’m getting this
    1:08:46 translation right, but the way it was described to me was like, all right, for each of those four
    1:08:53 minutes, you have these four minute work intervals and then you have three or four minutes of rest.
    1:08:57 And then you repeat four times. It’s like first minute, you’re like, wow, this is a lot of work.
    1:09:05 Second minute, you’re like, wow, this really sucks. Third minute, you’re like, I don’t know if I’m going
    1:09:09 to make it. I don’t think I’m going to make it. And then minute four is like, I feel like I’m going to
    1:09:17 die and I’m being chased by wolves. And so it’s like, when we say like maximal effort, at least as it’s been,
    1:09:22 and those are not Peter’s words, but another person I like a lot. It’s a lot of work. Like it’s pretty
    1:09:27 pukey, but I’m going to be doing that given the longevity associations that you mentioned. Now, I would
    1:09:34 love just to get your two cents. And this relates to vitamin D too, a little bit for me, where I’m like, in
    1:09:41 these studies, looking at VO2 max as a predictor or correlate of longevity, are there other possible
    1:09:47 confounding variables that might actually be their real McCoy? Because you could say, and I know you know all
    1:09:51 this, but just for the, for people listening, it’s like, okay, well, I’ll make this up. Like women who do
    1:09:58 Pilates in Manhattan have, you know, four years of additional lifespan. Okay, great. So you could
    1:10:04 conclude then we should all do Pilates to improve lifespan. It’s like, well, wait a second. Pilates
    1:10:11 is expensive and maybe they’re also following a better diet and so on and so on and so on. So are there
    1:10:19 any confounders that might apply possible confounders to these VO2 max studies? I’m assuming they’re
    1:10:24 observational more than intervention-based. So what are your thoughts there?
    1:10:30 Yeah. I mean, there’s absolutely a possibility for some sort of confounding factors in any sort
    1:10:35 of observational study, including the ones I’m discussing. Because, you know, yes, they’re going
    1:10:39 in and measuring their cardiorespiratory fitness, which is better than a lot of observational studies
    1:10:44 that you’re going off a questionnaire, right? That’s already sort of one, at least one up over
    1:10:49 other observational data. But, you know, at the end of the day, you may have someone that
    1:10:55 has undiagnosed cancer or some kind of undiagnosed disease because diseases are, I mean, they’re
    1:10:59 supposed to be disease-free or if they have a disease, it’s like known, right? And so everything’s
    1:11:04 corrected for. But there’s always the possibility that, you know, some people have some disease and
    1:11:09 that’s why they can’t exercise very well because they’re diseased, right? And it’s the disease that’s
    1:11:14 causing them to have a higher mortality rate than the lower cardiorespiratory fitness is.
    1:11:18 There are, you know, studies always try to account for diet and all that stuff. But at the end of the
    1:11:23 day, you can never really establish causation, right? So that is why we turn to randomized controlled
    1:11:30 trials. And I will say this is where the heart aging comes in and also this type of training.
    1:11:38 So when I’ve done VO2 max training, my legs grow. My legs grow like weeds, like they adapt and get big.
    1:11:46 And so along with the age-related decrease in VO2 max, there’s also sarcopenia and age-related loss of
    1:11:53 muscle mass. And so I’m like, I wonder if there’s, you know, these people who also have higher VO2 max
    1:12:02 tend to have a higher percentage of lean body mass or muscle tissue, be more heavily muscled than the
    1:12:06 people without. I don’t know. I mean, that’s just, I mean, I’m just kind of poking out of, out of
    1:12:08 curiosity. Okay. So the heart aging.
    1:12:13 This goes into why randomized controlled trials are important because you can establish more
    1:12:19 causation, right? From an intervention. And this study was done by Ben Levine out of UT Southwest and
    1:12:25 Dallas. And it’s a really, to me, it’s just, it’s seminal groundbreaking study that isn’t talked about
    1:12:31 enough. He’s, by the way, he’s just a phenomenal cardiovascular exercise physiologist. I mean,
    1:12:37 he trained with like the biggest giants out there. And what he did was he took, him and his lab took
    1:12:43 50-year-olds that were sedentary. So the middle age, 50 years old, sedentary, but otherwise healthy.
    1:12:48 So you didn’t have any other diseases besides being sedentary, which I think is a disease,
    1:12:52 but they didn’t have any other diseases like cardiovascular disease or type 2 diabetes or
    1:12:58 hypertension, right? So they were otherwise healthy, just not active. And he wanted to see if he could put
    1:13:05 these guys on a pretty long two-year training protocol. How would that affect the aging of
    1:13:14 their heart? So as we age, our hearts typically shrink in size and they get stiffer. And that
    1:13:19 affects not only our cardiorespiratory fitness and our ability to exercise. And, you know, I mentioned
    1:13:24 our cardiorespiratory fitness goes down with age, but it affects our cardiovascular disease risk as well.
    1:13:30 The reason our hearts get stiffer, by the way, does come down to a lot of glucose. So the more glucose
    1:13:36 stimulation, more glucose is around in your vascular system, it through a chemical reaction forms advanced
    1:13:44 glycation end products. So this glycation essentially stiffens the collagen that surrounds your myocardium
    1:13:49 and your pericardium. And so you get like this stiffer heart that can’t respond to stress well.
    1:13:54 So you want your heart to be very plastic and malleable and flexible, right? You don’t want it
    1:13:55 to be stiff.
    1:13:56 It doesn’t sound good.
    1:14:01 So just like you don’t want your blood vessels to be stiff. So what he wanted to do was see if he could
    1:14:05 change the structure and the trajectory of these aging hearts. And so he put them on a two-year
    1:14:11 training program, which involved the Norwegian 4×4, by the way. And when you start someone out that’s,
    1:14:17 you know, not physically active and you want them to do the Norwegian 4×4, when you have them doing
    1:14:21 their interval, their four-minute interval, and this speaks to you as well, or anyone,
    1:14:27 you don’t have to necessarily go as hard as you can the whole four minutes. You just have to be
    1:14:28 working hard.
    1:14:30 Yeah, you do have to last four minutes, right?
    1:14:36 You have to last four minutes. And so some people even start off, they’re just briskly walking
    1:14:38 because that’s hard for them, right?
    1:14:39 Yeah, totally.
    1:14:43 So it’s all tailored to the individual. And so some people get really intimidated where they’re like,
    1:14:47 oh, I just, there’s no way I could ever do that. Well, actually, these people did do it. And they
    1:14:52 started out doing Norwegian 4×4, but they also did a variety of other exercises, including moderate
    1:14:57 intensity and some more vigorous intensity exercise, as well as some resistance training. And the control
    1:15:03 group was just this like yoga, flexible training sort of stuff that people were doing. By the end of the
    1:15:08 two years, these people were working out about five hours a week. And at some point, they were doing
    1:15:14 two Norwegian 4x4s a week, and then they went down to just doing one a week. But over the course of
    1:15:18 two years, they were getting a lot of exercise, about five hours a week. And essentially, at the
    1:15:24 end of those two years, the structure of their heart, so the stiffness of it and the shrinking of it
    1:15:31 was reversed. So their hearts grew and they became more flexible. And it was reversed in such a way that
    1:15:38 it was 20 years less aging. So their hearts looked more like 30-year-olds than 50-year-olds, which is
    1:15:43 pretty incredible. It’s amazing. And I think it’s also like, well, you think 50, it’s too late to start
    1:15:49 exercising. Well, it’s not too late. I mean, you can be in your 90s and get benefits, you know. So I think that’s
    1:15:55 another really important take home with that story is that, you know, you can reverse your aging of your heart by
    1:16:00 20 years if you really put in the effort. Five hours a week is about what I do. I have five or six hours a
    1:16:07 week. It’s a lot of work. I didn’t always do that. But I’ve decided as I started to get into my mid-40s,
    1:16:12 I’m going to spend less time podcasting and more time exercising because this is my health.
    1:16:16 Foundational for everything else. That’s the base of the pyramid.
    1:16:26 All right. So let’s park that particular piece of training for a moment. Do you want to piggyback on
    1:16:31 that and talk about reversing brain aging with exercise? Is it a different type of exercise or
    1:16:36 do you get two birds with one stone? You do get two birds with one stone. And that’s why I do like
    1:16:44 the vigorous intensity exercise because when you’re kind of shifting into working out harder, when you’re
    1:16:50 getting that vigorous intensity exercise, you are shifting somewhat to anaerobic metabolism. So you’re
    1:16:56 working so hard that you can’t get oxygen to your muscles fast enough to use mitochondria for the
    1:17:01 mitochondria to then make energy. And so your body goes, I need energy quick right now. There’s not enough
    1:17:07 oxygen here. And so you start to use glucose outside of the mitochondria as energy. And that’s called
    1:17:13 glycolysis. And you’re not just only doing glycolysis, by the way. I mean, even if you’re doing an
    1:17:18 all-out sprint, you’re still somewhat using your mitochondria. It’s not like a black or white thing,
    1:17:23 right? It’s sort of gray here. But the reality is that when you’re not going intense, you’re not doing
    1:17:28 anaerobic exercise. And so what happens is when you’re doing that sort of getting in that anaerobic
    1:17:33 state, what I mean is like you’re not using oxygen to make energy. You’re just using glucose. You actually
    1:17:40 make something called lactate as a byproduct. And lactate is what’s essential for the brain health. So there have
    1:17:45 now been a variety of studies. This was pioneered by Dr. George Brooks at UC Berkeley decades ago.
    1:17:50 So many studies have now shown this now. It’s no longer a hypothesis, but it used to be called the
    1:17:56 lactate shuttle hypothesis, where when you start to do this vigorous intensity exercise, you get your
    1:18:02 lactate levels higher than baseline. Baseline, you’re usually about 0.9 millimolar or so lactate. You start
    1:18:09 to go above that and well beyond. You’re getting 7, 10 millimolar, 15 millimolar, right? The lactate gets into
    1:18:14 your bloodstream and it’s used by other tissues. So it goes back into the muscle. It’s used for energy,
    1:18:19 it gets into the brain, it gets into the heart, liver quickly. It happens within 20 minutes. You can
    1:18:24 do a HIIT workout, see your lactate go up to 15 millimolar, measure it 20 minutes later, and it’s
    1:18:29 back to baseline. I mean, it’s quick. It gets consumed. One of the major organs that consumes it
    1:18:36 is the brain. This has been shown in human studies. Not only is lactate very much like beta-hydroxybutyrate,
    1:18:41 our favorite ketone that we’ve been talking about, because it’s an energetically favorable source of
    1:18:46 energy. Lactate is used by neurons to make energy, just like beta-hydroxybutyrate is very similar.
    1:18:51 It’s energetically favorable. All that stuff is happening in the same stuff. So you’re using the
    1:18:55 lactate. Glucose is being spared. You’re making glutathione. Lactate is also a signaling molecule.
    1:19:02 So in the brain, it’s activating brain-derived neurotrophic factor, which is important for growing new neurons in
    1:19:06 the brain, which has been shown in human studies. So there have been human studies that have done
    1:19:11 exercise for even just one year and shown that you can increase the growth of the hippocampus by like
    1:19:19 1% to 2% after that year of training versus losing 1% to 2% of the hippocampus. That usually happens
    1:19:25 as you get in older age. So the lactate is, again, a product of that vigorous intensity exercise.
    1:19:29 It’s increasing norepinephrine in the brain, serotonin. It’s a signaling molecule. It’s
    1:19:34 basically your muscle’s way of communicating with the brain. Hey, I’m really working hard. This is a
    1:19:41 stressful time. Let’s respond to that stress. Your brain is also working hard during exercise and
    1:19:45 particularly vigorous intensity exercise. It’s stressful in the brain. Anybody that’s done it
    1:19:49 knows that resistance training also increases lactate and resistance training is very stressful
    1:19:54 on the brain. And so it’s like this response to that stress. Your brain is now being communicated from
    1:19:58 the muscles by lactate, which is the communicator and saying, hey, make all this good stuff so that we
    1:20:04 can like not die. That’s essentially the adaptations that are happening. So that’s why I like to also
    1:20:10 incorporate vigorous intensity exercise into my program because I am also prone to neurodegenerative
    1:20:14 disease. I have Parkinson’s disease on my dad’s side. I have Alzheimer’s disease on my mom’s side.
    1:20:20 So I’m very, very tuned in to neurodegenerative disease and wanting to prevent it and do what I can.
    1:20:26 And I do think that vigorous intensity exercise is part of that equation because I want to get that
    1:20:32 lactate, which is so beneficial for brain health. So let me ask you about two other things related to
    1:20:39 brain health since this is on the mind. For the first is related to saunas and the second one is vitamin D.
    1:20:50 So with saunas, I was looking back and I think this is probably summarized by some LLM. So I want to be
    1:20:56 very careful with citing numbers. So I’m looking at a summary, I believe, of the findings of a large
    1:21:02 finished study published in JAMA Internal Medicine 2015 that followed 2000 middle-aged men for 20 years.
    1:21:10 That’s wild. And it looks like, please correct me if from memory you can correct any of this, but
    1:21:18 all callers mortality, 24% lower risk with two to three times per week. This is sauna use and four
    1:21:23 to seven times per week was associated with 40% lower risk. And I’ll just cut to the one that’s
    1:21:28 of greatest interest to me right now. It says in a follow-up paper, using the sauna four to seven times
    1:21:33 per week was associated with a 66% lower risk of dementia and 65% lower risk of Alzheimer’s.
    1:21:41 Now, at face value, if those numbers are roughly accurate, those numbers seem incredible, right?
    1:21:49 And I guess what I’m wondering is how should we think about those results? Because if out of 100 people,
    1:21:54 two people were getting dementia and now it’s one person, it’s less interesting than other ways of
    1:22:03 interpreting the data. How should we think about this? And how do you personally use if you do sauna or
    1:22:07 hot tub or heat stress at this point?
    1:22:17 So those numbers are accurate, by the way. They’re spot on. And there is a dose dependence there,
    1:22:20 which kind of strengthens the data, right? So people that are using the sauna more frequently
    1:22:26 are having a more robust effect. You mentioned 24% lower all-cause mortality and then 40%
    1:22:31 if they’re doing two to three times a week versus four to seven times a week, they’re having a 40%
    1:22:36 lower all-cause mortality. And the dementia risk is also extremely interesting to me. And this goes back,
    1:22:41 Tim, to like some of the earliest experiments that I did as a sort of budding young biologist at the
    1:22:50 Salk Institute where I was working with these little nematode C. elegans worms and injecting human amyloid
    1:22:57 beta-42 into these worms and essentially injecting it into their muscle. So that they become basically
    1:23:03 the amyloid beta-42 aggregates and forms these aggregates as these worms age. And it happens very
    1:23:10 rapidly because their life expectancy is only 15 days. So within a day or so, they start to become paralyzed
    1:23:15 where they can’t move their lower half where their muscular cells are. And they can only move their
    1:23:20 nose to feed in this little Petri dish with E. coli bacteria, which is what they eat.
    1:23:27 And so I would do these experiments and then I would overact over basically when you do a genetic
    1:23:32 manipulation and you can make them overexpress heat shock proteins, which are something that are
    1:23:38 robustly activated upon heat stress, as the name implies. And sauna has been shown to activate heat
    1:23:43 shock proteins. If you’re in the 163 degree Fahrenheit sauna for around 30 minutes, you can
    1:23:50 activate your heat shock proteins by 50% more than baseline. So when I would add heat shock proteins that
    1:23:55 would be activated in these worms, it would prevent this from happening. These protein aggregates don’t
    1:24:01 happen. And that’s because one of the things that heat shock proteins do is they help repair damaged
    1:24:06 proteins that are misfolded and prevent them from aggregating. And so you want to have more active
    1:24:10 heat shock proteins. If you’re wanting to prevent Alzheimer’s disease, now there’s a lot of animal
    1:24:16 studies that have shown this as well. For example, you can take a mouse and sort of give it Alzheimer’s
    1:24:22 disease in a similar way. And if they have a lot of active heat shock protein genes, then they’re not
    1:24:27 getting the Alzheimer’s disease. It delays it, right? So I remember reading this study and it was like one of
    1:24:31 the things I was thinking about was, of course, you know, the heat shock proteins are activated upon
    1:24:36 the sauna use that you would probably see a lower incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and even
    1:24:40 dementia. There’s other things as well. Cardiovascular health is really improved with
    1:24:46 the sauna. So sauna sort of mimics moderate intensity exercise. And so you, if you’re having
    1:24:50 improved cardiovascular health, that means more blood flow to the brain. Lots of things are happening,
    1:24:55 right? The one thing I do want to mention, Tim, and this is, this study was, I think it came out in
    1:25:03 2020-ish. I don’t remember the exact year, but it was not out of Finland. I believe it was a Polish
    1:25:09 study. And that study looked at sauna use and dementia risk. There was very interesting results
    1:25:16 there. So they sort of looked at people that are using saunas, but they also sort of categorized them
    1:25:21 based on the amount of heat. So how hot their saunas got. So in the Finnish studies and out of
    1:25:27 finilin, majority of the people are using the sauna at around equivalent of 174 degrees Fahrenheit.
    1:25:32 That’s about what the average temperature of pretty much any of those studies that you cited,
    1:25:34 that’s about the average temperature that they’re using them. And they’re in there
    1:25:39 for about 20 minutes. Now, this other study looked at a wide range of different temperatures,
    1:25:44 that temperature versus like the really, really high extreme end. So people that were doing like 200
    1:25:49 degrees Fahrenheit or more. And this is something that you can see nowadays. Like there’s this sort of,
    1:25:54 you know, go all in, go hard or go home, right? And so people think that they need to go in a 200
    1:25:59 degree sauna. And if they go in a 200 degree sauna, it’s going to be better than going in a 175 degree
    1:26:06 Fahrenheit sauna, right? Apparently not the case. So in that study, again, you saw a protective effect
    1:26:10 of people that use this sauna. And I think it was also dose dependent, but I can’t recall.
    1:26:16 There was a protective effect, but only if they used saunas that were less than 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
    1:26:21 People that started going into the 190 degrees to 200 degrees Fahrenheit range
    1:26:27 actually had an increased risk. And so, so that was something that I don’t know that anyone talks
    1:26:33 about, but I’ve done really, really hot saunas before. I personally don’t like it. I get headaches
    1:26:37 actually. So, you know, your head is in there and you have to think about that. Your head is getting
    1:26:43 heated up. And so I don’t know that it’s necessarily good to go in a 212 degree Fahrenheit sauna,
    1:26:48 you know, for your head. Now, I don’t want to say that with certainty because there could be
    1:26:51 all kinds of confounding factors, but it’s something to keep in mind. And why do you have
    1:26:56 to go above 190? 190 is hot as hell. Like that’s good enough. You don’t have to go above that.
    1:27:01 Yeah. My default setting in my sauna is 194. So it’s just kind of like, well, I guess I said it
    1:27:06 some time ago. So it’s just been set at 194. So that’s quite my default. So maybe I want to dial it back.
    1:27:13 I think 190 is great. Yeah. 190 is great. And I, so you asked about me and how I use the sauna.
    1:27:17 Now I should also mention that hot tubs are good as well. And in fact, the study just came out a few
    1:27:23 weeks ago showing that hot tubs have, you know, comparable effects on blood pressure regulation,
    1:27:27 all these parameters that are looked at with sauna use as well. And a lot of people ask that question,
    1:27:33 you know, oh, what about a hot tub or a hot bath? And I think not everyone has access to a sauna.
    1:27:37 Not everyone has access to a hot tub, but a lot of people have access to a hot bath.
    1:27:43 And I think if you can get a sort of pool thermometer and keep the temperature of your
    1:27:48 bath, 104 degrees Fahrenheit, which is what all the studies use. You have to keep adding hot water.
    1:27:52 That’s fine. It’s pretty hot. But you want to stay in there. Yeah, it’s pretty hot. You stay in there
    1:27:57 for about 20 minutes and you’re going to have comparable effects. You’ll be sweating like you’re in
    1:28:04 a sauna. Don’t worry about it. 104. Exactly. 104 is hot. And I actually do, I both, I do a hot tub and
    1:28:10 I do sauna. I like to do a hot tub at night. It does seem to help with my sleep, but sometimes I’ll
    1:28:14 do the sauna in the day and I’ll do it after a workout and it sort of extends my workout. I
    1:28:17 particularly like doing them after a workout, like in the winter when it’s cold and if I work out
    1:28:23 outside. So that’s kind of how I use the sauna. I was doing hot tubs for a while, like every night.
    1:28:28 I don’t do that in the summer because it’s just hot. And so I don’t like, I actually shift more to
    1:28:32 doing cold exposure more in the summer, which is kind of funny. It’s pretty much the only time I do
    1:28:36 it is in the summer. Such a wuss. I like doing the heat a lot in the winter.
    1:28:43 I would be very curious to see if, you know, they measured like sperm motility and morphology
    1:28:49 for all the males who are doing this. And they’re like, good news. You have this incredibly lowered
    1:28:54 risk of Alzheimer’s. Bad news. You’re effectively sterile from all the heat on your swimmers.
    1:29:01 Good point. You have to, yeah. There’s been studies that have shown you do lower motility for sure.
    1:29:06 The motility rate’s lowered and that those changes are reversed after six weeks of abstaining. So it is
    1:29:12 reversible. Also don’t use it as a contraception method either because I know some people that have
    1:29:14 tried that. It doesn’t work. You can still get pregnant.
    1:29:24 Not so smart. Do you still use, if needed, curcumin or theracumin or any of these products? I think
    1:29:31 Mariva or Mariva was one that you mentioned as a formulation in place of NSAIDs like ibuprofen
    1:29:34 or naproxen, or is that something that you may have changed your mind on?
    1:29:39 I actually just did it like a couple of days ago when I had a headache and I didn’t know why.
    1:29:44 That’s the thing that I go to still. I mean, there’s some cases where it won’t work,
    1:29:49 like where it’s just like, I don’t know, this is like a really bad headache. I don’t usually get
    1:29:54 headaches, but if I don’t sleep well or something, something going on or my cycle, I will get a
    1:30:00 headache and I use it. I use four Mariva, which is a phytosomal curcumin, which increases the
    1:30:05 bioavailability of the curcumin. I use the Thorne brand just because I think the brand is reliable,
    1:30:11 no affiliation with them, but it, it works for me. It really does. So it’s, I think 500 milligrams
    1:30:22 of curcumin per capsule, I believe. And so I do four, so I’m getting two grams, but I do still use it.
    1:30:24 Yeah. Just don’t take it right after your workout, right?
    1:30:27 I don’t, it doesn’t have the same effect.
    1:30:30 Yeah. It doesn’t have the same kind of Cox2 inhibition as the other guys.
    1:30:35 It doesn’t. And in fact, I think it helps with DOMS to lay down some muscle soreness. And so
    1:30:40 sometimes actually I do use it actually after a really like hard squat workout.
    1:30:48 All right. I’m glad I asked. So speaking of not getting enough sleep, let’s hop to creatine
    1:30:54 because God, I don’t know where I read this, but that higher doses of creatine,
    1:30:59 maybe like 25 grams, 20, 25 grams could combat sleep loss or some of the effects of sleep loss.
    1:31:03 What should we know about creatine, right? Creatine has been around for a long time.
    1:31:10 There are dozens of questionable sports performance, athletic performance products come out every year.
    1:31:16 Most of them are all marketing, no substance. Creatine has been used by athletes for a very long time,
    1:31:27 but for at least the last five years, I have been taking it typically five grams a day for more for the cognitive or potential cognitive benefits, right?
    1:31:34 But what else should we know about creatine? Because what you put in your newsletter not too long ago was forwarded to me.
    1:31:37 And then you told me via text. I was like, okay, we should probably talk about this.
    1:31:42 So how should we think about creatine and best practices for different applications?
    1:31:46 Well, it’s funny. As you mentioned, it’s one of those supplements that have been,
    1:31:50 it was like in the gym bro world forever and still people associate it with that.
    1:31:55 But yet it’s been one of the supplements that’s actually stuck, right?
    1:31:59 It’s worked. And there’s been countless studies showing its effectiveness,
    1:32:03 particularly with respect to increasing exercise volume.
    1:32:08 So in other words, what creatine is, is it’s essentially,
    1:32:12 it’s stored in our muscles as something called phosphocreatine.
    1:32:17 When you take creatine exogenously, it’s stored in our muscles as phosphocreatine and then used for energy.
    1:32:19 It’s a way to make energy quicker, right?
    1:32:22 And so the more of it you have stored, the quicker you can sort of make that energy.
    1:32:28 And so what it’s been shown to do is really help with increasing exercise volume.
    1:32:33 In other words, you can do one to two more reps per set or sets, you know,
    1:32:36 you can do an extra set or whatever, whatever it is you’re doing, right?
    1:32:40 And that leads to, obviously, if you’re increasing your workload,
    1:32:44 you’re going to have increased muscle mass and muscle strength because you’re increasing your workload.
    1:32:48 It doesn’t work like protein in the sense that you can increase muscle mass because it’s anabolic.
    1:32:50 You need to put the work in.
    1:32:52 So creatine by itself isn’t going to make your muscles grow.
    1:32:54 It’s going to make you work harder.
    1:32:56 It’s going to be easier for you to work harder.
    1:33:01 And so you end up increasing your exercise volume, which then has adaptations on your muscle, right?
    1:33:06 And that’s why a lot of people like it because, for one, they want their muscles to grow bigger and stronger.
    1:33:11 And two, some people like to use it during competitions or something because they want to be able to increase that exercise volume as well.
    1:33:19 It’s also really good for the explosive power type of exercise, again, because you’re getting that quick mobilization of producing energy.
    1:33:24 And I’m just glossing over decades of research and a lot of specifics here because I want to get to the brain.
    1:33:31 But it turns out creatine is something that our liver makes a little bit, I think, like maybe one to two grams a day.
    1:33:36 It’s also something that’s found in dietary sources, particularly animal products.
    1:33:40 So it’s high in meat, poultry, fish, dairy, not so much in vegetables.
    1:33:49 So vegans and vegetarians actually end up, they can have lower creatine if they’re not supplementing with it because they’re not eating animal products, right?
    1:33:54 Well, it turns out that it seems as though if you’re supplementing and eating a high meat diet,
    1:34:01 you’re getting a good amount of creatine, five grams seems to be about the point at which your muscles get saturated,
    1:34:03 at least over the course of like a month or so.
    1:34:15 So if you’ve been using creatine for a month or two, your muscle stores are saturated and five grams a day is kind of what’s consumed by the muscle on a daily basis to kind of maintain that.
    1:34:19 I would argue that you might want to go above that to get the brain benefits.
    1:34:20 And here’s why.
    1:34:24 Because your muscle is a very, very greedy when it comes to creatine.
    1:34:31 So that five grams that you’re taking, I used to take five grams a day until about last April or March or something like that.
    1:34:34 So the five grams a day is what’s been shown in countless studies.
    1:34:35 That’s probably why you take it.
    1:34:38 I took it because it was countless studies showing five grams a day was like the dose.
    1:34:41 That was the dose that you needed to get the muscle benefits.
    1:34:46 All these brain benefits now coming out seem to be at higher doses.
    1:34:55 And you mentioned one that was 25 grams, I mean 20 to 25 grams, which is kind of a crazy study where they, you know, did about 21 hours of sleep deprivation, essentially.
    1:34:57 They were barely sleeping at all.
    1:35:13 And giving them the 25 grams of creatine, 20 to 25 grams, depending on their weight, seemed to not only negate the negative effects of sleep deprivation on their cognition, but it also improved their cognition beyond what their baseline normal cognition is when they were sleeping.
    1:35:22 And that’s what was really intriguing to me, as well as some of the other studies where older adults were given, you know, 20 grams of creatine and it improved their cognition.
    1:35:30 We now have the first pilot study in Alzheimer’s disease where, again, 20 grams were given to a very small number of people with Alzheimer’s disease.
    1:35:31 It also improved cognition.
    1:35:42 It turns out that when you start to go above the 5 grams and you get into more of the 10 grams range, then some of that creatine is getting into the brain versus being all consumed by the muscle, right?
    1:35:44 I personally use creatine now.
    1:35:45 I do 10 grams a day every day.
    1:36:01 And what I have noticed, and this could be totally placebo, but I’ll tell you, when I don’t do my 10 grams a day, what I have noticed is that the afternoon sleepiness kind of slump I get is completely gone if I take my 10 grams a day.
    1:36:03 10 grams, I don’t get afternoon sleepiness.
    1:36:05 I miss it.
    1:36:06 I get it.
    1:36:07 So it’s not like a stored up kind of thing.
    1:36:10 It’s like, no, if I miss it that day, it’s noticeable.
    1:36:13 If I travel and I don’t have it, it’s noticeable.
    1:36:15 So I’m hooked on the 10 grams a day.
    1:36:16 If it’s placebo, I don’t care.
    1:36:17 It works, right?
    1:36:35 On top of that, what I’ve also been doing ever since that study came out with the 21 hours of sleep deprivation, I take about 20 grams of creatine when I’m traveling and I have to give a talk or I’m doing a podcast, particularly because oftentimes I’m traveling either to central time or to eastern time.
    1:36:39 And I’m, you know, giving a talk early in the morning, which is like 6 a.m. my time.
    1:36:41 I got to be like on my game.
    1:36:50 So I take the 20 grams and I kid you not, it’s like you get this brain boost, but without like the caffeine.
    1:36:52 It’s hard to explain.
    1:36:54 Yeah, without the creepy, crawly ants on your skin.
    1:36:55 Right.
    1:36:57 Without that like jittery thing.
    1:37:01 And even that, sometimes the caffeine isn’t enough.
    1:37:05 Like if you’re really jet lagged, you know, it’s just, especially if you’re going across time zones.
    1:37:08 Well, also for me, it’s like I’m a caffeine fast metabolizer.
    1:37:11 If I have a cup of coffee, I’m on fire for 25 minutes and then I’m sleepy.
    1:37:16 I think some of that is actually a glucose response, but that’s a whole separate thing.
    1:37:21 Like I, I using glucometer when I was doing all my ketogenic experiments and so on, I’m like, wow.
    1:37:27 If I have too much coffee, there is a huge, which is not that surprising, spike in glucose
    1:37:31 and then a very predictable subsequent drop off.
    1:37:38 So it doesn’t end up being net net that helpful for me unless I’m doing a 20 minute sprint on
    1:37:39 something, which is probably never.
    1:37:41 So the creatine is super interesting to me.
    1:37:47 Let me ask some very specific, maybe mundane questions, but I think they’re practical, which
    1:37:55 is when the subjects were taking 20 or 25 grams, was that in one sitting?
    1:37:57 Was that in multiple divided doses?
    1:38:01 When you take it, is it in powder form?
    1:38:05 Is it little sachets that you can take with you on travel days?
    1:38:06 Is it encapsulated?
    1:38:08 What does it actually look like?
    1:38:13 With respect to all the studies, I don’t remember if they were in one sitting.
    1:38:17 A lot of studies are, if they do like a 20 gram, it will be in one sitting.
    1:38:18 What I do is different.
    1:38:20 I do five gram doses.
    1:38:22 So creatine monohydrate is the form I take.
    1:38:26 It’s the absolute true, it’s the gold standard.
    1:38:27 Yeah.
    1:38:31 There’s a lot of other marketing out there that talks about other types of creatine, but
    1:38:32 that’s really the gold standard.
    1:38:34 And I had Dr. Darren Kando on my podcast.
    1:38:37 He’s a creatine researcher at the University of Regina in Canada.
    1:38:41 And like, you know, we talked all about this and he really convinced me creatine monohydrate
    1:38:42 is the way to go.
    1:38:46 I asked him about like every type of, you know, creatine under the sun.
    1:38:48 But the way I take it is in five gram doses.
    1:38:53 And so I do five grams first thing in the morning and then I’ll do my workout.
    1:38:56 And then I do another five grams about 11 a.m.
    1:38:59 And that’s my 10 grams that I get.
    1:39:04 When I’m traveling, I do have these sachets that, again, Thorn makes, by the way, no affiliation.
    1:39:08 I mean, there’s like probably a million other, you know, I like Thorn because they’re creatine
    1:39:09 is NSF certified.
    1:39:11 And so it’s free of contaminants.
    1:39:12 Like, I really like that.
    1:39:14 So again, find your own favorite brand.
    1:39:17 But I like this brand and I like, they have sachets, which are five gram sachets.
    1:39:20 And so I will have my 10 grams for the day.
    1:39:25 Or again, if I’m traveling for work-related purposes, I will take 15 to 20 grams, depending
    1:39:27 on how much I need.
    1:39:30 In that case, I will do two 10 gram doses.
    1:39:31 For me, I can tolerate that.
    1:39:33 I don’t have any GI problems with it.
    1:39:35 Yeah, I was going to bring that up.
    1:39:37 Yeah, some people do.
    1:39:41 I think doing the five gram doses is like pretty easy on the gut.
    1:39:44 Most people don’t have a big problem with the five grams.
    1:39:45 It’s when they go above that.
    1:39:46 Right.
    1:39:48 So I’ll say a few things.
    1:39:53 The NSF certified is a pretty simple cheat code just to use as a filtering mechanism for
    1:39:53 a lot of supplements.
    1:39:59 And it is shocking how inconsistent supplement contents are.
    1:40:04 I mean, I’ve looked at lab reviews of like 20 off-the-shelf melatonin products, and it ranges
    1:40:11 from zero melatonin up to like 20x the label amount.
    1:40:12 It’s just bananas.
    1:40:16 So, you know, I use Momentous Creatine, but it’s passing the same hurdle.
    1:40:24 And I will say like good news, you can reduce the likelihood of cognitive deficit from sleep
    1:40:25 deprivation.
    1:40:31 Bad news is you could increase the likelihood of disaster pants if you have 20 grams at one
    1:40:32 sitting.
    1:40:36 And I will say, you know, maybe from personal experience, maybe I’m just talking about somebody
    1:40:37 else.
    1:40:42 But if you really want to increase the likelihood of disaster pants, then you can do like a bunch
    1:40:50 of caffeine, double espresso, or black coffee with MCT powder, and then have your creatine
    1:40:50 around the same time.
    1:40:51 That would be asking.
    1:40:55 You’re going to want to pack some Pampers in your travel kit if you do that.
    1:40:57 So yeah, just be aware of the GI stuff.
    1:41:06 But I’m excited to up my intake because the science that you cited in the study or studies
    1:41:09 in your newsletter seemed really compelling.
    1:41:14 And it’s also one of those supplements where it’s like, okay, look, I assume this is on the
    1:41:20 grass list, like the generally recognized as safe, seems very well tolerated over decades
    1:41:24 and decades of research, assuming you don’t have some, who knows, right?
    1:41:28 Like really outstanding kidney dysfunction or something, maybe.
    1:41:31 So why not?
    1:41:35 In a sense, it’s also relatively inexpensive compared to a lot of things.
    1:41:40 Let me ask you, just because this has been on my mind, with the sulforaphane, I mangled
    1:41:45 the pronunciation of it, sulforaphane, you take that better on an empty stomach, better with
    1:41:46 food.
    1:41:50 This has become an issue when I’m doing the intermittent fasting sometimes, right?
    1:41:53 Especially if there’s something like the A-RIDS too, which I’m taking for the eye health,
    1:41:55 which is supposed to be twice a day.
    1:41:58 And I’m like, oh, it’s part of the reason why I’ve been doing like the quote unquote dirty
    1:42:07 fasting with a little bit of fat in the form of that heavy cream in coffee was to try to take
    1:42:14 supplements earlier in the day that are benefited from some type of fat in terms of absorption.
    1:42:17 So I, sulforaphane, does it matter?
    1:42:21 I think if you can take it fasted, that’s great.
    1:42:24 Some people find it kind of is hard on their stomach.
    1:42:26 And so they like to take it with food.
    1:42:33 And that’s really the only reason to take it with food is because they get like upset stomach.
    1:42:35 Like it’s like, you know, GI problem.
    1:42:40 So that would be, again, the only really real reason that you would have to really take it
    1:42:40 with food.
    1:42:44 I want to loop back around just so people aren’t like, Ferris, you forgot about vitamin D.
    1:42:46 I want to talk about vitamin D.
    1:42:53 So the vitamin D, I’ve taken vitamin D forever, tend to take 5,000 IU a day.
    1:43:00 I, particularly in the summer, get, I would say at least an hour in the sun without skin
    1:43:00 protection.
    1:43:01 And I built up to that.
    1:43:03 I’m not an idiot about it.
    1:43:06 And yet, I am barely in my labs.
    1:43:08 I’m always barely squeaking by on vitamin D.
    1:43:18 And for almost all of my adult friends who get labs, and this is also race agnostic, everybody
    1:43:24 is deficient or just on the border of being deficient, even if they seem to be taking a
    1:43:26 lot of supplemental vitamin D and getting a lot of sunshine.
    1:43:29 And I have to ask myself, what the hell is going on here?
    1:43:36 Is it, in what set of circumstances is it possible that everyone would be so deficient if they seem
    1:43:40 to be getting a bunch of sunlight, they’re taking a bunch of supplemental vitamin D.
    1:43:42 Can you shed any light on this?
    1:43:43 I can.
    1:43:43 Yeah.
    1:43:47 Or is there a problem with this measurement in the first place, which is why I was talking
    1:43:52 about like proxies and confounders and stuff earlier with respect to some of the other
    1:43:52 studies.
    1:43:54 Please educate me.
    1:43:57 So the way vitamin D is measured.
    1:43:59 So vitamin D actually gets converted into a steroid hormone.
    1:44:05 And this steroid hormone, essentially, it’s going inside the nucleus of our cells where all
    1:44:09 of our DNA is and it’s activating 5% of the protein encoding human genome.
    1:44:11 Many of these genes, it activates Clotho, by the way.
    1:44:12 You mentioned Clotho.
    1:44:14 Vitamin D is important for activating Clotho.
    1:44:15 Yeah.
    1:44:19 So very hugely important for dementia risk, which we can talk about.
    1:44:24 But to sort of answer your question, so your vitamin D levels are measured by a proxy and
    1:44:28 it’s called 25-hydroxy vitamin D, which is the precursor to the steroid hormone.
    1:44:34 So essentially, vitamin D3, which is made in your skin, or if you supplement with it exogenously,
    1:44:35 it gets into your bloodstream.
    1:44:42 And that vitamin D3 then goes to the liver and it’s converted into 25-hydroxy vitamin D.
    1:44:45 That’s the major circulating form of vitamin D.
    1:44:50 After it’s, you know, 25-hydroxy vitamin D is made in the liver, it then goes to the kidneys
    1:44:55 and it’s made into the actual active steroid hormone, which is called 125-hydroxy vitamin D.
    1:45:00 Well, it turns out the enzymes that are doing the conversion of vitamin D3 into that stable
    1:45:04 form that everyone gets, you know, when they’re getting a vitamin D blood test, that’s what
    1:45:07 they’re looking at, requires magnesium to work.
    1:45:13 And there have been studies showing that with low magnesium, it doesn’t happen readily at all.
    1:45:19 And so 50% of the U.S. population has insufficient levels of magnesium.
    1:45:21 So you’re talking about a coin toss here, right?
    1:45:23 One out of two, one out of two, right?
    1:45:26 You have a 50-50 chance a person’s not going to be getting enough magnesium.
    1:45:31 That’s been shown to actually play a role in circulating levels of vitamin D.
    1:45:35 So there have been N-Hayden studies and stuff showing that people that have low magnesium
    1:45:40 intake also have low circulating forms of 25-hydroxy vitamin D.
    1:45:41 So that’s one thing.
    1:45:43 Another thing comes down to genetics.
    1:45:50 There’s actually a lot of people that have SNPs, very common ones that probably came from
    1:45:55 southern areas that don’t make as much vitamin D3 from the sun exposure because probably they’re
    1:45:56 getting so much sun, right?
    1:45:59 So essentially, there’s the genetic component as well.
    1:46:02 And I’ve seen a lot of people’s different SNP makeups.
    1:46:07 And I know quite a few people that actually have to take a super high level of vitamin D3 to
    1:46:09 actually get enough vitamin D.
    1:46:13 And then the other thing is that you mentioned earlier, the variation between
    1:46:17 supplements, there have been studies on vitamin D supplements, and it’s the same problem with
    1:46:17 melatonin.
    1:46:24 There are some vitamin D supplements with a fraction of what is stated in terms of concentration of
    1:46:26 vitamin D3 on the nutrition facts.
    1:46:29 And then some of them have like 10 times as much vitamin D.
    1:46:34 So there’s just like this huge variation where you’re like, it says it has 5,000 IUs,
    1:46:35 but it only has 500.
    1:46:40 There’s a lot of different factors that could be contributing to that as well.
    1:46:44 And then there’s also like, you know, in terms of like people getting sun exposure, you said
    1:46:45 you don’t wear sunscreen.
    1:46:46 Some people do.
    1:46:49 People that have darker skin pigmentation have melanin.
    1:46:51 That’s a natural sunscreen.
    1:46:54 There have been studies showing that like, for example, out of the University of Chicago,
    1:46:58 there was a study that was published a few years back showing African Americans have to
    1:47:03 stay in the sun 6 to 10 times as long as a Caucasian to make the same amount of vitamin D3
    1:47:07 from the same amount of sun exposure because they have a natural sunscreen, you know, melanin,
    1:47:10 which is that darker skin pigmentation.
    1:47:12 It’s a natural, you know, sunscreen.
    1:47:14 It’s also why their skin always looks great as they’re aging.
    1:47:15 You’re like, oh, you’re 75.
    1:47:17 Your skin looks like you’re 30.
    1:47:17 Yeah.
    1:47:22 I remember, I won’t mention him by name, but meeting this African American fellow and I
    1:47:26 thought he was like 25 and he was 53 and had like five bigs.
    1:47:29 And the way we got to that is I was like, oh, are you married?
    1:47:30 And he’s like, yeah, five kids.
    1:47:31 And I was like, wait, what?
    1:47:32 You have five kids?
    1:47:35 You don’t look Mormon like, wait, what’s going on here?
    1:47:37 And, uh, and lo and behold.
    1:47:39 So let me, let me dig into some of this real quick.
    1:47:48 So recommended brands for vitamin D and how much should someone like me potentially be
    1:47:49 taking as a starting point?
    1:47:52 Because I’m also wary of taking too much vitamin D.
    1:47:54 I don’t want to overdose on vitamin D.
    1:47:57 It seems like there are some risks associated with that.
    1:48:00 Maybe I’m overstating them, but how do you think about that?
    1:48:07 And then in terms of this rate limiting factor that you mentioned, magnesium, what type of
    1:48:11 magnesium, how much, how should I think about both of these?
    1:48:12 Okay.
    1:48:16 So first of all, we need to talk about vitamin D levels and what the optimal levels are.
    1:48:19 And that’s really important for someone to figure out how much they should supplement
    1:48:19 with.
    1:48:25 I tend to think anywhere between 40, 60 to 80, like 40 to 80 nanograms per mil, you’re
    1:48:27 in an optimal range.
    1:48:28 I like 40 to 60.
    1:48:30 I think that’s my sweet spot.
    1:48:33 And that’s because there’s lots of studies out there showing all cause mortalities lower
    1:48:35 within that range.
    1:48:39 So 50 nanograms per mil would be great.
    1:48:42 I mean, that’s a great place to be if you’re below, you know, 30.
    1:48:45 If you’re about just 30, you might want to try to get up to 40.
    1:48:47 So depending on where you are.
    1:48:50 Let’s just say for argument’s sake that I’m at 30.
    1:48:54 I think I’m probably closer to 40, but let’s say, let’s say it’s 30.
    1:48:55 Okay.
    1:49:01 For someone that’s at 30 nanograms per mil is supplementing with 5,000 IUs a day.
    1:49:02 Yeah.
    1:49:03 Or 4,000.
    1:49:04 I was taking 5,000.
    1:49:05 Yeah, 5.
    1:49:10 5,000 IUs a day and getting an hour of sun in the summer without sunscreen.
    1:49:16 You probably should be closer to 50 nanograms per mil, I would say, if you’re taking that.
    1:49:17 I’ll check my last labs.
    1:49:20 I just had them pulled two weeks ago, so I’ll double check.
    1:49:21 Right.
    1:49:28 So for someone in that case, you might go up to 7,000 IUs and check and see where you’re at a month later.
    1:49:32 Then or in the 40 to 50 range, then that’s your optimal dose to take.
    1:49:38 And this is an important conversation to have, Tim, because it really is – there’s an individual component here.
    1:49:41 And people just want to – at the end of the day, they want to – how much do I take?
    1:49:41 How much do I take?
    1:49:44 Well, you have to get a vitamin D blood test.
    1:49:48 This is one of those that you have to really measure because, as you mentioned,
    1:49:53 there’s huge variation there in terms of absorption and then the magnesium issue, right?
    1:49:59 And that’s something, again, so people – there’s the RDA for magnesium, right?
    1:50:03 So for men, it’s about 400 milligrams a day.
    1:50:08 For women, it’s about 300 milligrams a day of magnesium intake from diet or supplemental sources.
    1:50:14 If you’re taking a supplement and also if you’re athletic and sweating a lot and using the sauna,
    1:50:19 those requirements can go up between 10% to 20% depending on how physically active you are.
    1:50:22 If you’re like the endurance athlete, you’re on the 20% higher range.
    1:50:28 If you’re more just like the average, like I’m a committed exerciser, then you might have to go up 10% above that.
    1:50:38 So typically, the best forms of magnesium to take are the forms of magnesium that are the organic forms.
    1:50:44 So that would mean it’s bound to like a salt, like magnesium citrate or magnesium malate or magnesium tarate.
    1:50:49 Those are more bioavailable than magnesium oxide, for example.
    1:50:53 There’s also magnesium glycinate, which is also a very bioavailable form.
    1:51:03 It’s the form that I take as well and dose range, you know, you can take 300 milligrams a day and probably not have an EGI distress.
    1:51:06 And so that gets you most of the way there and then you get the rest from your diet, right?
    1:51:12 You’re eating some leafy greens, you’re eating maybe some almonds or something which are really high in magnesium.
    1:51:21 If you’re not getting any greens at all, then you’re going to have to go up a little bit more to the 400, 450 milligram range,
    1:51:22 especially if you’re athletic.
    1:51:28 But that, if you’re taking something like electrolytes, you’re getting some magnesium there.
    1:51:32 So you can figure out how much magnesium is in your electrolyte and that can be counted towards it as well.
    1:51:47 There’s also magnesium threonate, which is the magnesium form that is allegedly able to cross the blood-brain barrier better than other forms of magnesium that I mentioned.
    1:51:50 And I say allegedly because it’s animal studies that have shown that.
    1:51:53 There have been a couple of human studies…
    1:51:55 Unfortunately, there’s a conflict of interest.
    1:51:58 They were done by the makers of the magnesium threonate supplement.
    1:52:00 So that’s always important to keep in mind.
    1:52:08 But they have shown that magnesium threonate could improve some cognitive scores if you kind of pulled all the cognitive scores together.
    1:52:16 And so I think that there’s no reason why, if you’re interested in cognition and stuff, trying the magnesium threonate, a lot of people like it as well.
    1:52:17 So that’s another form of magnesium.
    1:52:24 Although I do think you should probably take some magnesium glycinate along with that because you don’t want all the magnesium going into your brain.
    1:52:31 You want some of it going into your liver and activating the enzymes that are converting vitamin D3 into 25-hydroxyvitamin D, right?
    1:52:32 So that is something to keep in mind.
    1:52:42 If that form of magnesium indeed is going into the brain more, you want to make sure you’re getting some of the other forms to cover the other bases of other organs as well.
    1:52:48 What brand of vitamin D supplementation and magnesium glycinate do you use?
    1:52:50 Is that also a thorn or are they other suppliers?
    1:52:55 I use Pure Encapsulations for the vitamin D.
    1:53:02 I have some friends, mutual friends of ours, that like the Vessisorb vitamin D3.
    1:53:06 So people that are not able to increase their vitamin D as well.
    1:53:13 Vessisorb really increases the bioavailability of a lot of things including ubiquinol, the CoQ10 I mentioned.
    1:53:18 I should have mentioned that by my dad, that’s the form I get for him because it increases the bioavailability.
    1:53:22 Also some fish oil has been shown to increase the bioavailability.
    1:53:25 So Vessisorb vitamin D3 can be found at Pure Encapsulations.
    1:53:27 I don’t have an affiliation with them either.
    1:53:30 They also have a lot of clean third-party tested products as well.
    1:53:32 And then I use their magnesium glycinate.
    1:53:35 For the magnesium threonate, I use Zymogen.
    1:53:38 I like the Zymogen Magnesium 3 and 8.
    1:53:39 Great.
    1:53:39 All right.
    1:53:40 Thank you.
    1:53:42 I will get on the magnesium.
    1:53:44 And I will also check my last labs.
    1:53:46 I mean, I am very bespoke about this stuff.
    1:53:49 And to your point, you got to check your levels, guys.
    1:53:50 You can’t just be shooting in the dark here.
    1:53:52 It’s not a good idea.
    1:53:52 Right.
    1:53:52 All right.
    1:53:55 Where should we zig and zag to next?
    1:54:00 Do you want to talk about microplastics and mitigation strategies?
    1:54:03 It’s really a big mess.
    1:54:10 And the microplastics are now, it’s not just, okay, well, I’m not going to drink out of bottled
    1:54:12 water, plastic bottled water.
    1:54:16 Or, you know, if you can get any kind of water filter, any kind of water filter is great.
    1:54:21 Reverse osmosis is the best because it filters out the smallest, smallest nanoplastics, which
    1:54:25 are the kind that are actually crossing the blood-brain barrier and getting into the brain.
    1:54:29 In the brain, they’re associated with Alzheimer’s disease and all kinds of things.
    1:54:31 But we now know they’re in chewing gum.
    1:54:36 So anything with the word gum base is made of a plastic polymer.
    1:54:39 So if you chew gum, it has to be plastic-free gum.
    1:54:41 And it’s not the same, I’ll tell you that.
    1:54:43 But it’s in gum.
    1:54:45 It’s tea bags.
    1:54:48 You know, tea bags, if you make tea with tea bags, all sorts of tea bags.
    1:54:52 They’re releasing, like, just thousands of microplastic into your beverage.
    1:54:53 They’re in essentially everything.
    1:54:57 And the problem is, is that it’s very hard to avoid.
    1:55:01 The best things that you can do to avoid them is reduce exposure, which would be the water
    1:55:01 filter.
    1:55:07 Try to avoid drinking out of any type of, you know, water that’s in a plastic bottle.
    1:55:11 But it turns out a new study just came out showing it’s also been found in glass bottles.
    1:55:15 And the reason for that, I know, I know.
    1:55:16 It’s like, are you kidding me?
    1:55:17 Come on.
    1:55:24 Apparently, the paint that’s on the lid of the glass bottle is, like, shedding little
    1:55:26 particles into the beverage.
    1:55:30 And those are microplastics because the paint is, like, got plastic in it.
    1:55:36 And so, essentially, my take-home from this is, if you’re traveling and you have to choose
    1:55:42 between a plastic water bottle with water in it and a glass one to buy, I would still buy
    1:55:49 the glass one because the particle size is higher, it’s larger in the glass bottles, and that doesn’t
    1:55:52 get absorbed in the gut very well at all, if any.
    1:55:53 You actually excrete it through feces.
    1:55:57 And so, I think the next study that’s going to be done will show this.
    1:55:59 Essentially, I’m sort of speculating here.
    1:56:04 But because the size matters, the size of plastics in the plastic bottles are super small.
    1:56:08 And that’s really absorbed well by the gut epithelia and taken up into the bloodstream and gets
    1:56:09 to the other organs.
    1:56:13 Also, the plastic chemicals, like BPA, are in plastic.
    1:56:14 They’re not in the glass.
    1:56:18 I still think that opting for glass is the best option, even though that study came out,
    1:56:20 oh, glass has more plastic than plastic bottles.
    1:56:23 It’s, like, one of those sensational headlines.
    1:56:24 The devil’s in the details, right?
    1:56:25 There’s always, like, nuance there.
    1:56:27 The size matters.
    1:56:28 In this case, the size matters.
    1:56:31 The size matters in this case, for sure.
    1:56:34 But, you know, when it comes to, you know, people want to know, well, is there anything I
    1:56:36 can do to sort of detox these microplastics, right?
    1:56:40 Like, that’s the big concern that people have.
    1:56:45 Well, if I can’t reduce, if it’s impossible to reduce my exposure because they’re just absolutely
    1:56:48 everywhere, then can I sort of get rid of them?
    1:56:53 And unfortunately, there’s not a lot of evidence right now out there that you can.
    1:56:57 Perhaps some of this electrophoresis sort of thing where you kind of filter your blood.
    1:56:59 But, like, who’s doing that?
    1:57:01 Like, maybe you’ll do it.
    1:57:05 But, like, you know, that’s not something that the public’s generally going to do.
    1:57:07 And I don’t even know that I’m going to do it.
    1:57:07 Yeah.
    1:57:13 It’s also, even if they were going to do it or willing to do it, it’s not readily accessible
    1:57:17 or cost-effective for people to use.
    1:57:18 Exactly.
    1:57:18 Yeah.
    1:57:24 So, again, your best strategy here is minimizing your exposure to them.
    1:57:29 And the way to do that, for one, would be, obviously, a water filter top of the list because
    1:57:34 the water that’s coming through your tap, you know, through your sink does have microplastics
    1:57:34 in it.
    1:57:38 And that’s a major, major source of microplastic exposure for many, many people.
    1:57:44 So, if you can get any type of water filter, again, you can even get countertop reverse osmosis
    1:57:44 water filters.
    1:57:49 Those are great for filtering out the majority of microplastics.
    1:57:57 I wonder if the big, berky countertop filtration system is effective at filtering out microplastics.
    1:57:58 I don’t know.
    1:57:59 It is.
    1:58:01 It’s effective at filtering out microplastics.
    1:58:05 It’s not clear about, like, the nano-nano, like, the super, super small size ones.
    1:58:06 It might.
    1:58:07 It might not.
    1:58:08 I don’t know.
    1:58:12 But it does definitely, the micro-size ones, it does filter out microplastics.
    1:58:18 So, the thing with reverse osmosis is it’s really filtering out all, like, even the nanoplastics
    1:58:19 as well.
    1:58:23 Of course, you have to consider, like, re-adding, like, certain minerals and trace elements that
    1:58:25 are found in water back to your water.
    1:58:29 And some reverse osmosis companies do that.
    1:58:32 You can have them put on a filter that’ll just add it back in after it filters out all
    1:58:33 the microplastics.
    1:58:38 But you can also just buy mineral drops and put those in your water, or you can take a mineral
    1:58:42 supplement that has some of these minerals that are taken out as well.
    1:58:46 The other thing I do want to mention is that the plastic-associated chemicals are another
    1:58:50 concern, and that would be, like, the BPA, BPS.
    1:58:53 These chemicals are endocrine disruptors.
    1:58:54 They disrupt hormones.
    1:58:58 They’re also associated with, you know, Alzheimer’s disease.
    1:58:59 They’re associated with cancer.
    1:59:00 All sorts of things, right?
    1:59:07 And those can actually, I think, actually, this is a big speculation on my part just based
    1:59:08 on animal studies.
    1:59:13 I think sulforaphane plays a role in detoxing BPA from our system.
    1:59:20 And that’s because of the whole situation where it activates the very same enzymes that do excrete
    1:59:21 BPA through urine.
    1:59:22 It does that.
    1:59:24 And it’s been shown in animal studies.
    1:59:29 Animal studies that are given sulforaphane and then given a high dose of BPA, it completely
    1:59:33 blunts the toxicity of the BPA, which is pretty interesting as well.
    1:59:35 So the other thing to keep in mind is heat.
    1:59:36 And I’ll say this.
    1:59:42 All the to-go cups that you’re out there buying when you go to your favorite coffee shop, fill
    1:59:46 in the blank for the most part, with the exception of the blue bottle coffee, phenomenal.
    1:59:47 They’re great.
    1:59:48 All these paper cups are lined with plastic.
    1:59:55 And when you add a hot beverage into the plastic lining, it releases, like, all these microplastics
    1:59:59 into your beverage, and it releases the chemicals, like, BPA into them, like, 50-fold.
    2:00:04 Blue bottle coffee, by the way, they apparently line their cups with sugarcane, polylactic
    2:00:05 acid.
    2:00:07 And so they don’t have any plastic.
    2:00:11 I remember the other day I went into a blue bottle coffee shop, and I was like, I really
    2:00:13 wanted to get a hot tea.
    2:00:15 And I was like, you know, do you guys line your cups with plastic?
    2:00:17 And she’s like, no, we line them with sugarcane.
    2:00:17 I was like, yes.
    2:00:19 So that’s something to keep in mind.
    2:00:23 You see a lot of people drinking these to-go cups everywhere, and you’re pouring a hot beverage
    2:00:23 into it.
    2:00:28 It’s a really, really major source of microplastic exposure because you’re accelerating the breakdown
    2:00:29 of the plastic.
    2:00:32 He accelerates the breakdown of the plastic, and essentially, you’re doing that in real
    2:00:34 time, like, in an instant, right?
    2:00:34 Right.
    2:00:36 Bring your own cup.
    2:00:37 The tea bags, right?
    2:00:38 And the tea bags.
    2:00:43 So you have to do loose leaf tea, which is what, now I’m like, always, it’s got to be loose
    2:00:43 leaf.
    2:00:47 I’ll bring my own little, I’ll sometimes open the tea bag out, and I bring my own little
    2:00:49 tea steeper thing with me.
    2:00:52 The half globes that connect together?
    2:00:56 Mine are the ones that, like, you kind of, like, squeeze on it and opens up and then closes
    2:00:57 the clamps back together.
    2:01:02 But, yeah, so I use that because the tea bags, again, you’re getting the heat on top
    2:01:06 of the plastic, you know, polymers that are making up the tea bag and accelerating to break
    2:01:07 down the plastic.
    2:01:09 So you’re drinking, you know, plastic beverage, right?
    2:01:12 There’s all these health consequences now associated with microplastics.
    2:01:13 You mentioned the brain.
    2:01:19 It’s been found, like, 20 times to accumulate 20 times more in the brain than in other organs.
    2:01:25 And people with Alzheimer’s disease have up to 20 times more microplastics in their brain
    2:01:26 than people that didn’t have Alzheimer’s disease.
    2:01:29 And then the same goes for, like, cardiovascular disease.
    2:01:32 There’s been a study that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine about a year
    2:01:39 ago showing that people that had microplastics in their whatever aortic part that they were
    2:01:44 doing surgery on, those individuals, like, ended up dying of a heart attack, like, within
    2:01:46 the next three years versus ones that didn’t have any microplastics.
    2:01:48 Anyways, all sorts of interesting stuff.
    2:01:50 We don’t know enough about it.
    2:01:54 But I think enough said we do know that they’re not good and we want to try to avoid them as
    2:01:56 much as we can and that they are pervasive.
    2:01:57 They’re everywhere, right?
    2:01:58 That’s ubiquitous.
    2:02:00 Yeah, and there’s some simple things people can do.
    2:02:04 I mean, this is not necessarily in the same category, but it’s like, look, the effects
    2:02:08 at least seem to be, I don’t know if they’re well-established.
    2:02:13 Maybe there are animal studies on this, but certainly there’s a lot of seemingly compelling
    2:02:20 evidence pointing to the effects of, say, phthalates as endocrine disruptors on male fertility.
    2:02:26 And it’s like, look, if you have shampoo or soap with a really strong fragrance, just stay
    2:02:26 away from it.
    2:02:32 I mean, they’re like very simple guidelines for some of these things that I think can
    2:02:33 be very helpful.
    2:02:37 Yeah, the microplastic stuff is kind of terrifying.
    2:02:38 I did not realize the gum.
    2:02:43 I knew about the tea bags, the water filtration, did not realize the gum.
    2:02:49 I don’t chew a lot of gum, but one of my relatives who has Alzheimer’s has chewed like four packs
    2:02:52 of gum a day for 10 years.
    2:02:56 And I was like, oh shit, I wonder if that’s a contributor.
    2:02:58 Wow, that’s crazy.
    2:03:04 I started chewing gum when I learned about the research showing that xylitol could, you
    2:03:08 know, inhibit some of the S-mutagens, bacteria that are involved in cavity formation.
    2:03:10 And then a few years later, you’re like, God damn it.
    2:03:14 Well, I was able to reverse cavities multiple times.
    2:03:15 And my doctor was like, keep doing it.
    2:03:17 And I’m like, yes, the xylitol.
    2:03:22 And then I, yeah, I found out like, it was like this year I found this out, Tim.
    2:03:23 This year, the study came out with the gum.
    2:03:25 And I was devastated.
    2:03:29 I mean, I’ve chewed so much gum, so much gum.
    2:03:32 And I’ve let my child chew it.
    2:03:35 And it’s like, all I could think about was how great it was for the teeth.
    2:03:40 And now it’s like, oh my God, this has like been a source of microplastics that I had no idea.
    2:03:45 I did thankfully find an alternative xylitol source of gum that is microplastic free.
    2:03:48 It’s like chewing on bark.
    2:03:51 Is it like chewing on tasteless bark?
    2:03:53 It’s actually made from bark.
    2:03:58 No, it’s made from like trees, like some kind of sap or something from the bark.
    2:03:58 Or like resin or something.
    2:03:59 Yeah.
    2:03:59 Yeah.
    2:04:00 Sounds delicious.
    2:04:03 You can’t just do xylitol mints.
    2:04:04 You have to chew it.
    2:04:05 I guess you have to get it up.
    2:04:06 You can do xylitol mints.
    2:04:08 Yeah, you can do xylitol mints.
    2:04:09 I have those as well.
    2:04:16 Well, you know, just to on the same thread of, you know, you don’t always get it right.
    2:04:17 Completely right.
    2:04:22 I was looking at some of the research doc that I have in front of me.
    2:04:29 And there’s one section that I highlighted, which was each three-hour increase in nighttime
    2:04:34 fasting was linked to 20% lower odds of elevated hemoglobin A1c, right?
    2:04:36 This long-term marker of blood glucose.
    2:04:43 And then one of your bullets was the effects of alcohol on the brain and cancer risk.
    2:04:46 And so I was reading this document over dinner.
    2:04:47 I sent this to you.
    2:04:51 And my time zones are all screwed up because I just got back from Polynesia.
    2:04:53 And so I’m eating at like 10 p.m., first of all.
    2:04:55 And then I had a glass of wine.
    2:04:59 So I put the glass of wine on top of my research document with all of this text visible.
    2:05:01 And I sent it to you.
    2:05:02 And I was like, am I doing it right?
    2:05:06 It’s like, you know, you’re not going to always get it right.
    2:05:07 But let’s talk about it.
    2:05:09 Do you want to talk about the booze for a second?
    2:05:12 I mean, so alcohol, yeah.
    2:05:13 And especially since we were talking about A1-4.
    2:05:15 Just to depress people after the microplastics.
    2:05:18 I know.
    2:05:23 It’s like you can’t have any enjoyment at all if you want to live a long, healthy life.
    2:05:25 No, you need to find a good balance, obviously.
    2:05:30 So alcohol is, it’s a toxin.
    2:05:32 It’s also a lot of fun, right?
    2:05:37 I mean, it’s fun to drink and have a glass of wine.
    2:05:42 Sometimes it helps kind of, it feels like you’re lowering your stress, lowering some inhibitions.
    2:05:44 It’s fun to do with a group of friends and stuff.
    2:05:46 It’s not so great for the brain, though.
    2:05:51 And certainly if you’re concerned about Alzheimer’s disease and dementia risk.
    2:05:56 And I will say that there’s been a lot of mixed research out there looking at alcohol.
    2:06:00 alcohol consumption and dementia and Alzheimer’s disease where some of it says,
    2:06:03 well, if you have, you know, if you’re doing moderate alcohol consumption,
    2:06:07 you can actually have a protective effect against dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, right?
    2:06:13 Where it’s like, you know, this idea that alcohol, like a glass of wine a day is actually beneficial for you.
    2:06:14 So you should be drinking that.
    2:06:20 I wonder if it’s actually these social interactions facilitated by alcohol versus the moderate alcohol itself, I wonder.
    2:06:22 Well, there’s a lot of things going on here.
    2:06:26 Certainly social interactions, that’s a confounding factor.
    2:06:34 Also, when people were then looked for their APOE genotype, it was found that it was actually in the non-APOE4 carriers,
    2:06:37 that you would find that benefit, not in the APOE4 carriers.
    2:06:45 And then on top of that, there’s been all this research that, you know, over the years has looked at moderate alcohol consumption.
    2:06:49 And depending on the study, that number changes, which is such a big bummer.
    2:06:50 It’s like, well, what does that even mean?
    2:06:54 In some cases, it can be, you know, seven drinks a day.
    2:06:55 In some cases…
    2:06:56 Seven drinks a day?
    2:06:56 Sorry.
    2:06:57 A week.
    2:06:58 Oh, my gosh.
    2:06:59 No.
    2:07:01 In some cases, it’s seven drinks a day.
    2:07:02 I mean, it’s a week for a woman.
    2:07:05 But for a man, it’s like 14 drinks a week.
    2:07:06 I wonder who authored that study.
    2:07:08 Yeah, exactly.
    2:07:08 It’s a big difference.
    2:07:14 But on average, like, moderate alcohol consumption is more like a seven drinks a week.
    2:07:16 Seven drinks a day would definitely be heavy alcohol consumption.
    2:07:21 That would be, you know, substance use or alcohol use disorder.
    2:07:23 Let’s cut the substance abuse part out.
    2:07:24 Alcohol use.
    2:07:25 Why can’t you say abuse anymore?
    2:07:27 Why do these things have to keep changing?
    2:07:27 It’s so ridiculous.
    2:07:29 And it’s hard for me because I’m always tripping on my words.
    2:07:31 Use disorder sounds better than abuse.
    2:07:35 I mean, what are the reasons behind this?
    2:07:36 Do you know?
    2:07:42 Because I’m following all this psychedelic stuff, and it was like abuse for a long time,
    2:07:45 and then all of a sudden, nope, verboten.
    2:07:46 Can’t say that.
    2:07:47 Who knows?
    2:07:47 Anyway.
    2:07:48 It’s funny.
    2:07:53 I still have read so much of the literature that I still say abuse because that’s what
    2:07:54 I’m familiar reading.
    2:07:58 But anyways, back to this, what I was saying, which is seven weeks.
    2:07:58 Sorry.
    2:07:59 All right.
    2:08:00 We’re going to cut this out, Tim.
    2:08:02 Seven drinks a week.
    2:08:04 How many drinks have you had before this podcast, Rhonda?
    2:08:11 Well, I did have some ketone ester, or there’s a little bit of alcohol that is involved with
    2:08:11 that.
    2:08:12 Yeah, that’s true.
    2:08:16 Yeah, watch out for the 1,3-butan dial anyway.
    2:08:17 Right.
    2:08:25 There’s something called the sick quitter hypothesis, which is essentially a lot of these studies
    2:08:30 were comparing people that are drinking this moderate alcohol consumption with non-consumers,
    2:08:32 people that abstain from drinking.
    2:08:38 And it turns out that many, many, many, many studies did not account for the sick quitter
    2:08:40 aspect, which is essentially-
    2:08:40 Sick quitter.
    2:08:41 Is that English?
    2:08:41 Someone gets sick.
    2:08:43 Oh, sick quitter.
    2:08:44 I got it.
    2:08:44 Sick quitter.
    2:08:45 Quitter.
    2:08:46 Yes.
    2:08:51 So essentially what it means is they get sick, and so they quit drinking alcohol.
    2:09:00 And then when they’re filling out their questionnaire, however many years later, whatever, they are
    2:09:02 asked, how many drinks do you have a week?
    2:09:04 And they say zero because they quit.
    2:09:07 The question wasn’t asked, were you a former drinker?
    2:09:08 Disclose the prior drinking habit.
    2:09:09 Very important.
    2:09:15 And now more studies are, when they’re doing the questionnaires, are asking that question.
    2:09:19 But many, many, many years and many, many studies did not ask that question.
    2:09:25 And so it’s very possible when you’re looking at these cohorts of people that are comparing
    2:09:31 moderate alcohol consumption to no alcohol consumption, they’re saying, oh, look, there’s
    2:09:31 a benefit.
    2:09:34 You have less cardiovascular disease risk.
    2:09:37 You have less dementia risk if you drink versus not drink.
    2:09:43 We don’t really know if that’s because these people were former drinkers and did so much
    2:09:47 damage already that that’s why they’re getting dementia more.
    2:09:49 In the non-drinker group.
    2:09:51 In the supposed non-drinker group.
    2:09:52 Quote, unquote, non-drinker group.
    2:09:53 Right.
    2:09:55 Which could have been a former drinker.
    2:10:01 But I think at the end of the day, when you look at alcohol and cancer, it’s just unambiguous,
    2:10:01 right?
    2:10:07 Alcohol is now classified as, I think, is it a group one carcinogen?
    2:10:10 It’s known to play a role in causing cancer.
    2:10:13 There’s no gray area here.
    2:10:17 And there’s many, many different cancers that it’s associated with.
    2:10:20 So alcohol does get metabolized into acetylaldehyde.
    2:10:23 That is something that can be a mutagen.
    2:10:24 It is a mutagen.
    2:10:26 Can cause cancer, right?
    2:10:32 And so there’s a lot of different cancers that’s associated with breast cancer, colon cancer,
    2:10:32 for example.
    2:10:38 Breast cancer is a big one because women’s lifetime risk of breast cancer is already high.
    2:10:42 I mean, a woman has a lifetime risk of one in eight of getting breast cancer.
    2:10:46 So if you have a room with eight people, one of those women, if you’re at a dinner party,
    2:10:50 you know, and eight women are there, then one of those women will come down and be diagnosed
    2:10:51 with breast cancer in her lifetime.
    2:10:57 So when you add alcohol consumption on top of that, if you’re talking about moderate alcohol
    2:11:02 consumption, that risk can go to one in six, which is very significant for a lifetime risk,
    2:11:03 right?
    2:11:09 So I do think that alcohol, I mean, obviously, like, some people enjoy it.
    2:11:13 And I don’t know that there’s any amount that’s actually safe.
    2:11:19 But if you’re really, like, looking for a number, it seems like one or two drinks a week seems
    2:11:21 to be the safe spot.
    2:11:23 I mean, the safest would be zero, zero drinks.
    2:11:28 But, like, if you’re really not wanting to have the damage, the light drinking, which is,
    2:11:32 like, the one to two drinks a week, that’s where you’re probably the best off.
    2:11:33 Talking about a weekend, right?
    2:11:38 You have a weekend and you’re doing, like, a glass of wine, maybe Friday or Saturday night.
    2:11:41 That’s the safest if you’re looking for, like, some alcohol consumption.
    2:11:42 If you’re going above that, just be aware.
    2:11:47 There is definitely a risk of increasing dementia, increasing cancer risk.
    2:11:52 However, there are other lifestyle factors that also play a role here, like being obese
    2:11:53 and exercise.
    2:11:59 In fact, there’s some of the exercise, some of the alcohol and dementia studies that have
    2:12:04 shown an increase in dementia incidence with alcohol consumption were negated by people that
    2:12:05 were highly physically active.
    2:12:08 So I do think there’s other things to consider.
    2:12:10 You can’t just silo everything, right?
    2:12:10 I mean, you’ve got to look at the whole lifestyle.
    2:12:13 Air squats before gelato and my tequila shots.
    2:12:21 Well, let me ask you, what is the purported mechanism, maybe it’s known, by which alcohol
    2:12:30 increases the likelihood that you will experience some of these maladies like cancer, dementia,
    2:12:30 et cetera?
    2:12:36 Is it acting as an acetyl aldehyde acting as a mutagen and therefore just fucking up your
    2:12:37 DNA, like smashing your DNA?
    2:12:44 So you have these mutations that then proliferate and turn into some type of dangerous cancer.
    2:12:47 Like, is there more to the story of mechanism of action?
    2:12:49 Yeah.
    2:12:52 I mean, acetyl aldehyde is one aspect of it.
    2:12:53 It’s an important one.
    2:12:55 But the alcohol itself is causing inflammation.
    2:12:58 I mean, it’s causing gut permeability, essentially.
    2:12:59 It’s very hard on the gut.
    2:13:04 And so what ends up happening is you release inflammatory factors into your bloodstream.
    2:13:07 Lipopolysaccharide gets released into the bloodstream.
    2:13:09 Inflammation gets, you know, activated.
    2:13:13 Inflammation is a major cause of cancer and also brain aging.
    2:13:20 So the brain aging aspect is definitely linked to the oxidative stress component and the inflammation
    2:13:21 component.
    2:13:23 Damage is happening to neurons.
    2:13:28 And I think, you know, one of the reasons why people with ApoE4 are a little more sensitive
    2:13:34 to alcohol is because the repair processes in individuals with ApoE4 isn’t as robust.
    2:13:35 It’s compromised already.
    2:13:38 It’s compromised already, right?
    2:13:42 And so they’re not able to repair that damage that’s being generated from the alcohol, whereas
    2:13:45 people without the ApoE4 somewhat can repair it a little bit better.
    2:13:49 And then you add the breakdown of the blood-brain barrier on top of that, and then you’re just
    2:13:54 getting more inflammation into the brain, and neuroinflammation is a major cause in Alzheimer’s
    2:13:54 disease.
    2:13:56 I mean, it’s really a known factor now.
    2:13:58 And you’re disrupting mitochondria.
    2:13:58 You’re disrupting…
    2:14:04 Just everything you know about to be important for health is sort of affected by alcohol through
    2:14:05 a variety of mechanisms.
    2:14:06 Do you ever drink?
    2:14:08 I don’t drink very much.
    2:14:10 I used to drink more.
    2:14:12 You know, sometimes I go several months without having anything.
    2:14:15 I do, so I’m not putting you on the stand here.
    2:14:19 I don’t drink all the time, but I’m just giving you a little leeway.
    2:14:26 Yeah, I used to drink at least a couple times a week where I would do the weekend thing, but
    2:14:29 I don’t drink much anymore.
    2:14:32 Once in a while, I’ll have a glass of Prosecco for a celebration.
    2:14:38 I do enjoy it, but I definitely try to limit it to certainly once a week.
    2:14:42 But like I said, these days, I’ll go like, you know, a couple of months without having
    2:14:45 anything, and then I’ll have a social situation where I like to do it.
    2:14:50 And the great thing about that is I’m so sensitive to the alcohol that I’m such a lightweight.
    2:14:55 And it’s great because I get like one glass of Prosecco, and I’m like, this is amazing.
    2:15:01 I forgot to mention with respect to the dementia risk and alcohol, you asked about mechanisms,
    2:15:02 the sleep aspect, right?
    2:15:04 Oh, for sure.
    2:15:05 That’s a huge one.
    2:15:10 Yes, it’s a huge one because alcohol does disrupt sleep, despite the fact that people
    2:15:10 That’s massive.
    2:15:11 Massive.
    2:15:16 People use it because, I know people that use it because it helps them fall asleep easier.
    2:15:20 So it’s definitely something that decreases that sleep latency.
    2:15:24 People can fall asleep easier, but it completely disrupts.
    2:15:28 So they have more awakenings in the middle and in the night, and it disrupts REM sleep.
    2:15:34 I mean, so there’s every reason to definitely not drink and certainly don’t drink close to
    2:15:34 bedtime.
    2:15:38 You want to kind of be able to get rid of the alcohol before you go to sleep.
    2:15:41 Going back to your picture, you were doing everything wrong, but…
    2:15:43 Oh, that was…
    2:15:43 Yeah.
    2:15:44 Am I doing it right?
    2:15:44 Yeah.
    2:15:46 That was very much deliberate.
    2:15:52 Rhonda, one thing, and I’m so curious if maybe you’ve heard reports of this.
    2:15:55 I can ask my audience and figure it out.
    2:16:01 Wasn’t placebo effect because I didn’t expect it, but it seems like when in ketosis, like
    2:16:07 past 1.5 millimolars, even above like 1.2 for me, and I use a Precision Extra device to
    2:16:08 track that.
    2:16:12 I’ve tried a number of other devices that are remarkably erratic.
    2:16:15 In any case, I am much more sensitive to alcohol.
    2:16:19 Much, much, much, much, much more sensitive to alcohol, which is great because then I’m
    2:16:20 a cheap date, right?
    2:16:23 I could have my one glass of mezcal or whatever, and I’m good.
    2:16:25 And I don’t drink super often.
    2:16:29 I might take like three or four weeks off, but then it’ll be like this week.
    2:16:30 I’m in New York City.
    2:16:31 This is a city of drinking.
    2:16:35 A lot of people have decided to do ketamine instead, which I think is a Faustian bargain
    2:16:38 shitty trade for a number of reasons.
    2:16:42 But, and then I’ll stop, you know, party with my oldest friends this weekend.
    2:16:43 I’m sure there’s going to be drinking.
    2:16:49 And then I’ll stop for two weeks and take a month off or two months off or something like
    2:16:49 that.
    2:16:51 It’s kind of how I operate these days.
    2:16:56 But the ketosis seems to sensitize me, which is what I thought was pretty interesting.
    2:17:01 I hadn’t noticed that before when I was in ketosis, probably because I wasn’t drinking
    2:17:02 during those periods.
    2:17:06 But on the ketamine substitute, right?
    2:17:10 Oh, this is what I’m using now as a healthier alternative.
    2:17:19 I think the, is this risky question is often, is this risky or is this bad for me can be answered
    2:17:22 in absolute terms, but it can also be answered in relative terms.
    2:17:26 So zero alcohol might be better than two drinks.
    2:17:28 Seems pretty unequivocally that’s the case.
    2:17:36 But if you then ask in relative terms, as compared to what, if you’re swapping in another behavior
    2:17:44 or smoking after your dinner or, I mean, smoking is a whole different kettle of fish that we
    2:17:45 could unpack some other time.
    2:17:49 Nicotine is pretty interesting, but lung cancer, less interesting.
    2:17:56 There is the, as compared to what, when people find another coping mechanism.
    2:18:00 So I just wanted to throw that out there as just another question that I think is, is worth
    2:18:01 people asking.
    2:18:03 If they’re going to abandon something, that’s great.
    2:18:06 If you can just delete it without replacing it with something.
    2:18:13 But if there is a substitute, if there is an alternative or something that you may end up
    2:18:18 adding to your behavior or your consumption, just to be aware of that, because you have to measure
    2:18:21 A versus B, not just A versus lack of A.
    2:18:22 Just wanted to throw that out there.
    2:18:27 I’ve seen so many people unravel from ketamine that it’s, I feel, a moral responsibility to
    2:18:30 mention it because it can be so, so incredibly addictive.
    2:18:37 Fast acting, short duration, even though it is very successfully used to treat, say, treatment
    2:18:44 resistant depression when it’s administered in a clinic at reasonably higher doses for, let’s
    2:18:46 just say, six infusions over two weeks, something like that.
    2:18:51 John Crystal at Yale has done a lot of great research and his teams and co-authors used
    2:18:55 recreationally actually increases your predisposition to depression.
    2:19:01 I think psilocybin is a better candidate when it comes to something like that, you know, because
    2:19:02 it’s really not addicting.
    2:19:06 I don’t know if you saw this, Tim, but this really, it’s, of course, people may not be aware,
    2:19:10 but it’s been shown to treat depression as well in more than one study.
    2:19:10 Oh, yeah.
    2:19:11 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
    2:19:12 Yeah.
    2:19:17 The two major applications are major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder as it stands
    2:19:17 right now.
    2:19:23 This study just came out like, gosh, this like last two weeks or something showing is the
    2:19:30 animal study that psilocybin increased life expectancy by almost 20% in mice.
    2:19:32 Yeah, I mean, I saw that.
    2:19:34 And that was, I think that was at Emory.
    2:19:35 Am I making that up?
    2:19:36 I think it was at Emory.
    2:19:37 Yeah, I think it was.
    2:19:40 And I remember looking at it because I was like, wait a fucking second.
    2:19:50 I think they were giving something like five milligrams of psilocybin to these rats or mice.
    2:19:56 And I’m going to mess up the numbers a little bit, but I was like, wait a second, because I’ve funded a lot of the science.
    2:20:06 And for humans who are walking around at one, let’s just call it whatever, 125 to 200 pounds, it’s 25 to 30 milligrams.
    2:20:18 So on a like migs per kigs basis, are those rats getting like the equivalent of 300 dried grams of mushrooms on a monthly basis?
    2:20:20 I was like, let me look at that.
    2:20:21 And let me look at that a little more closely.
    2:20:25 And the metabolism is very different, but it’s still non-trivial.
    2:20:35 Like I do think those little furry friends are probably tripping balls because all of the, like, I do think the life extension stuff is interesting.
    2:20:50 And I would say just anecdotally looking at people who have consumed in South America ayahuasca for decades, like they are, can’t prove cause and effect, but almost always sharper than the rest of the people in their age cohort, almost always, which is interesting.
    2:20:56 I mean, it raises more questions than it provides answers, but the life extension stuff is interesting.
    2:21:05 And I’ve been funding some science that Chuck Nichols is doing, looking at the anti-inflammatory applications of different psychedelic compounds.
    2:21:07 And they are profound, really profound.
    2:21:19 And what makes it most interesting is that it can be achieved depending on the compound, and he’s tested dozens of them, with very, very trace quantities, in sub-perceptual quantities.
    2:21:27 You do not need any hallucination, any sort of reality distortion to achieve the anti-inflammatory effects.
    2:21:29 So like a microdosing.
    2:21:36 Yeah, even less than what someone would consider a microdose, like a nanodose.
    2:21:38 It’s remarkable.
    2:21:44 And part of my reason for looking at, like, the fasting, the ketogenic diet, also looking at cold exposure.
    2:21:48 And most recently, this is a whole separate topic.
    2:21:58 Obviously, for another time, I’ll be having a scientist on this podcast soon, super credible, very, very well cited, to talk about vagus nerve stimulation.
    2:22:05 But when you look at how fasting, right, I was talking about this old Soviet work, looking at schizophrenia.
    2:22:06 Okay, interesting.
    2:22:22 Ketosis for epilepsy, and also all sorts of psychiatric conditions, but also things like potentially rheumatoid arthritis, or any number of Crohn’s disease, let’s say in the case of, like, vagus nerve stimulation.
    2:22:43 My theory, also with psychedelics, is that in a lot of cases, the antidepressant effects, the anxiolytic effects, this would be true for exogenous ketones as well, maybe, largely, I don’t think it’s a trivial piece of the puzzle, mediated by anti-inflammatory effects addressing chronic inflammation, including neuroinflammation.
    2:22:44 Totally.
    2:22:54 And so, as you said, right, if you’re, if you’re, if you’re chronically suffering from neuroinflammation, does not bode well for later life with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s and things like this.
    2:23:04 So, I’m trying to throw everything, sort of the kitchen sink, at this to see what these subjective and then measurable objective effects are.
    2:23:17 So, it’s like, okay, if I did intermittent fasting, and I’m doing then cold exposure during, which, by the way, past a certain point, does seem to shift from sympathetic to parasympathetic activation, particularly with certain breathing patterns.
    2:23:25 It’s like, okay, if I did that during the intermittent fast, I’m taking the sulforaphane, right, doing all that stuff.
    2:23:34 And then the exercise we talked about, and once a quarter doing a three to seven, let’s call it probably every quarter I used to do a three-day fast.
    2:23:37 I don’t think I’d do a seven-day every quarter, that’d probably be once a year.
    2:23:41 But just looking at, like, okay, and then, like, the curcumin, right?
    2:23:56 It’s like, all right, can we throw, if we threw four or five at this problem and didn’t get too crazy, go America, like, more is better, like, we did the minimal effective dose, but recognized there might be a synergistic effect.
    2:23:57 What happens?
    2:23:58 And what can we measure?
    2:24:13 So I’d like to do, and I’m in the position where I could spend a lot of money just to see, like, okay, if we take out my white blood cells and then look at their ability to produce cytokines after certain interventions, like, okay, cool, like, let’s spend the money.
    2:24:15 Let’s see what happens after you do this stuff for a couple of weeks.
    2:24:18 Very, very, very, very interested in all this.
    2:24:19 Let’s do this.
    2:24:26 Rhonda, where can people find you, find what you’re up to, get into all things Rhonda Patrick?
    2:24:35 I have a podcast, you can find it on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, it’s called Found My Fitness, you can also just search Rhonda Patrick.
    2:24:37 One of the OGs, you’ve been doing it for a while now.
    2:24:56 Doing it for a while, yeah, and I’ve got a website, foundmyfitness.com, you can find all my stuff there, you can follow me on Twitter, or sorry, X, and also, I still do it, I still do it, you can follow me on X or Instagram, foundmyfitness, all one word, or look, just search my name, Dr. Rhonda Patrick.
    2:24:57 And you have a newsletter.
    2:24:59 I have a newsletter, yeah.
    2:25:10 I send out a weekly email that covers some fascinating new, either science, health, fitness, nutrition-related study, and usually it’s applicable.
    2:25:15 Sometimes it’s something that’s misunderstood in the media, and I break it down every week.
    2:25:27 I sent you the creatine one, you know, we covered a vitamin D, dementia one as well, I mean, a lot of different fascinating studies, so you can again find that on my website, foundmyfitness.com, you can sign up for the newsletter there.
    2:25:29 Awesome, yeah, I took so many notes.
    2:25:37 As always, I always take a lot of notes when we have our conversations, not necessarily on the podcast, but also in our text exchanges.
    2:25:38 Very actionable.
    2:25:41 I so appreciate what you do in the world.
    2:25:42 You’ve called a lot of things early.
    2:25:56 Looking at our timelines, it’s just been wild to look back, and I’m like, wow, April 2014, talking about the stuff that now all the fitness influencers are ranting and raving about today in 2025.
    2:26:09 It’s like, yeah, you’ve called a lot of things early, and I appreciate your ability to simplify without mangling, simplify without disfiguring the science.
    2:26:11 I really respect that.
    2:26:12 It’s not easy to do.
    2:26:26 It is such a service to people who care about being scientific literate, but they also care about and benefit from someone who can take what could be impenetrable and translate it without mistrust.
    2:26:34 Translating it into something that they can test with limited downside and plausible or supported upside.
    2:26:37 I just think it’s such a tremendous service.
    2:26:39 So I appreciate you, Rhonda.
    2:26:40 I really do.
    2:26:42 I appreciate you too, Tim.
    2:26:44 Thank you for all you do, and your podcasts have been great.
    2:26:45 I’ve listened to them over the years.
    2:26:47 You’re one of the few podcasts that I’ve listened to.
    2:26:51 So you’ve got great, insightful, thoughtful questions, and I’ve read your books.
    2:26:53 So I appreciate all you do.
    2:26:57 So the feeling’s mutual, and I’m glad we get to still have conversations over 10 years later.
    2:26:58 I know.
    2:26:59 I know.
    2:27:01 I love it.
    2:27:01 Yeah.
    2:27:02 The long game.
    2:27:03 It’s fun to play the long game.
    2:27:05 So nice to see you, Rhonda.
    2:27:09 Everyone, we will put links to everything, Rhonda Patrick, in the show notes.
    2:27:10 Check her out.
    2:27:11 You will not be disappointed.
    2:27:19 And as always, until next time, be just a bit kinder than is necessary to others, but
    2:27:20 also to yourself.
    2:27:23 And thank you for tuning in.
    2:27:25 Hey, guys.
    2:27:26 This is Tim again.
    2:27:31 Just one more thing before you take off, and that is Five Bullet Friday.
    2:27:35 Would you enjoy getting a short email from me every Friday that provides a little fun before
    2:27:36 the weekend?
    2:27:41 Between one and a half and two million people subscribe to my free newsletter, my super short
    2:27:42 newsletter called Five Bullet Friday.
    2:27:44 Easy to sign up.
    2:27:44 Easy to cancel.
    2:27:51 It is basically a half page that I send out every Friday to share the coolest things I’ve
    2:27:54 found or discovered or have started exploring over that week.
    2:27:56 It’s kind of like my diary of cool things.
    2:28:01 It often includes articles I’m reading, books I’m reading, albums, perhaps, gadgets, gizmos,
    2:28:06 all sorts of tech tricks and so on that get sent to me by my friends, including a lot of
    2:28:07 podcast guests.
    2:28:13 And these strange, esoteric things end up in my field, and then I test them.
    2:28:15 And then I share them with you.
    2:28:20 So if that sounds fun, again, it’s very short, a little tiny bite of goodness before you head
    2:28:22 off for the weekend, something to think about.
    2:28:26 If you’d like to try it out, just go to Tim.blog slash Friday.
    2:28:30 Type that into your browser, Tim.blog slash Friday.
    2:28:32 Drop in your email and you’ll get the very next one.
    2:28:33 Thanks for listening.
    2:28:36 Traditional budgeting apps, they can be interesting.
    2:28:37 Yeah, they can be helpful.
    2:28:41 I’ve tried out a bunch, but they don’t compare to the complete financial command center that you
    2:28:44 get with today’s sponsor, Monarch Money.
    2:28:48 And a number of my friends have recommended them publicly, have recommended it to me.
    2:28:54 And I had my entire team basically test this app out and they’re all still using it.
    2:28:59 Monarch is like your own personal CFO, giving you full visibility and control so you can stop
    2:29:01 merely earning and start growing.
    2:29:06 For instance, one person on my podcast team has tried four other budgeting apps, said linking
    2:29:10 his accounts, which includes banking, investments, and crypto had never been easier.
    2:29:15 And Monarch had the cleanest, simplest, yet most complete UI he’s ever seen.
    2:29:17 It made him want to track his finances.
    2:29:21 Monarch was named the Wall Street Journal’s best budgeting app of 2025.
    2:29:26 And it’s the top recommended personal finance app by users and experts with more than 30,000
    2:29:28 five-star reviews.
    2:29:32 So get control of your overall finances, the whole shebang with Monarch Money.
    2:29:35 Use code TIM at monarchmoney.com.
    2:29:38 Just type it into your browser for half off of your first year.
    2:29:42 That’s 50% off of your first year at monarchmoney.com with code TIM.
    2:29:46 Creatine isn’t just for muscle, it turns out.
    2:29:50 It’s essential daily fuel for your brain, your body, and long-term performance.
    2:29:53 For me, I have Alzheimer’s and dementia risk in my family.
    2:29:58 The cognitive benefits are the reason I take creatine every single day.
    2:30:03 And it also seems there’s some evidence to support, if you don’t get enough sleep, that
    2:30:06 you can use creatine to compensate, to recover from that.
    2:30:07 I also use it for that purpose.
    2:30:11 And today’s episode sponsor, Momentus, is the gold standard in creatine.
    2:30:15 There’s a lot of BS floating around, a lot of questionable creatine.
    2:30:17 But I choose them.
    2:30:17 Why?
    2:30:22 Because they source CreaPure creatine, the purest, most effective creatine monohydrate
    2:30:27 available, single sourced from Germany, and not cut with fillers or junk, which is hard
    2:30:28 to avoid otherwise.
    2:30:34 Their new lemon travel packs make consistency easy, naturally flavored, perfectly portioned,
    2:30:39 single serve packets that you can take with you on the road or at any time to mix with water.
    2:30:40 And you’re set.
    2:30:44 Every batch is NSF certified for sport.
    2:30:48 This is something I look for on a lot of products I use, which means it’s independently tested
    2:30:51 for safety, label accuracy, and banned substances.
    2:30:56 So if you’ve been curious about creatine, this is your moment to get back on track or try it
    2:30:57 for the first time.
    2:31:02 With a formula you’ll actually enjoy, it will make you feel great thanks to superior quality
    2:31:04 and quality assurance.
    2:31:07 So just go to livemomentus.com.
    2:31:15 That’s live, M-O-M-E-N-T, like live moment, O-U-S, livemomentus.com slash Tim for 35% off
    2:31:21 your first subscription or simply use code Tim at checkout, livemomentus.com.

    Rhonda Patrick, Ph.D. (@foundmyfitness) is a biomedical scientist and the founder of FoundMyFitness, a platform dedicated to delivering rigorous, evidence-based insights on improving healthspan and mitigating age-related diseases.

    Sponsors:

    Momentous high-quality creatine and other supplements: https://livemomentous.com/tim (code TIM for up to 35% off)

    David Protein Bars 28g of protein, 150 calories, and 0g of sugarhttps://davidprotein.com/tim (Buy 4 cartons, get the 5th free.)

    Monarch Money track, budget, plan, and do more with your money: MonarchMoney.com/Tim (50% off your first year at monarchmoney.com with code TIM)

    Helix Sleep premium mattresses: https://HelixSleep.com/Tim (27% off all mattress orders)

    Timestamps (more detailed timestamps will be added):

    00:00 Intro

    08:10 Aging Parents 

    32:59 Fasting 

    41:05 Ketosis 

    01:01:29 VO2 Max 

    01:20:29 Sauna

    01:30:43 Creatine

    01:42:41 Vitamin D

    01:53:55 Microplastics

    02:05:10 Alcohol 

    02:18:22 Psychedelics 

    *

    For show notes and past guests on The Tim Ferriss Show, please visit tim.blog/podcast.

    For deals from sponsors of The Tim Ferriss Showplease visit tim.blog/podcast-sponsors

    Sign up for Tim’s email newsletter (5-Bullet Friday) at tim.blog/friday.

    For transcripts of episodes, go to tim.blog/transcripts.

    Discover Tim’s books: tim.blog/books.

    Follow Tim:

    Twittertwitter.com/tferriss 

    Instagraminstagram.com/timferriss

    YouTubeyoutube.com/timferriss

    Facebookfacebook.com/timferriss 

    LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/timferriss

    Past guests on The Tim Ferriss Show include Jerry SeinfeldHugh JackmanDr. Jane GoodallLeBron JamesKevin HartDoris Kearns GoodwinJamie FoxxMatthew McConaugheyEsther PerelElizabeth GilbertTerry CrewsSiaYuval Noah HarariMalcolm GladwellMadeleine AlbrightCheryl StrayedJim CollinsMary Karr, Maria PopovaSam HarrisMichael PhelpsBob IgerEdward NortonArnold SchwarzeneggerNeil StraussKen BurnsMaria SharapovaMarc AndreessenNeil GaimanNeil de Grasse TysonJocko WillinkDaniel EkKelly SlaterDr. Peter AttiaSeth GodinHoward MarksDr. Brené BrownEric SchmidtMichael LewisJoe GebbiaMichael PollanDr. Jordan PetersonVince VaughnBrian KoppelmanRamit SethiDax ShepardTony RobbinsJim DethmerDan HarrisRay DalioNaval RavikantVitalik ButerinElizabeth LesserAmanda PalmerKatie HaunSir Richard BransonChuck PalahniukArianna HuffingtonReid HoffmanBill BurrWhitney CummingsRick RubinDr. Vivek MurthyDarren AronofskyMargaret AtwoodMark ZuckerbergPeter ThielDr. Gabor MatéAnne LamottSarah SilvermanDr. Andrew Huberman, and many more.

    See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

  • #475 – Demis Hassabis: Future of AI, Simulating Reality, Physics and Video Games

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 The following is a conversation with Demis Hassabis, his second time on the podcast.
    0:00:11 He is the leader of Google DeepMind and is now a Nobel Prize winner.
    0:00:16 Demis is one of the most brilliant and fascinating minds in the world today,
    0:00:24 working on understanding and building intelligence, and exploring the big mysteries of our universe.
    0:00:28 This was truly an honor and a pleasure for me.
    0:00:31 And now, a quick few-second mention of each sponsor.
    0:00:35 Check them out in the description or at lexfriedman.com slash sponsors.
    0:00:38 It’s the best way to support this podcast.
    0:00:42 We’ve got Hampton for connecting with founders and CEOs,
    0:00:47 Finn for AI customer service, Shopify for building e-commerce businesses,
    0:00:52 Element for daily electrolytes, and AG1 for your health.
    0:00:53 Choose wisely, my friends.
    0:00:55 And now on to the full ad reads.
    0:00:58 I do try to make them interesting, but if you must skip, friends,
    0:01:00 please still check out our sponsors.
    0:01:01 I enjoy their stuff.
    0:01:02 Maybe you will too.
    0:01:07 And also, to get in touch with me, for whatever reason, go to lexfriedman.com slash contact.
    0:01:09 All right, let’s go.
    0:01:17 This episode is brought to you by Hampton, a private community for high growth founders and CEOs.
    0:01:26 That’s the interesting thing about starting a company and running a company, especially one that’s growing really quickly, has to hire a lot, has to scale a lot.
    0:01:28 It’s perhaps a little bit counterintuitive.
    0:01:31 But for the founder, it can be deeply lonely.
    0:01:34 I suppose that’s one of the reasons they recommend to have a co-founder.
    0:01:43 But even outside of that, there’s just a deep loneliness with putting it all on the line, risking everything, knowing that the chances of success are low.
    0:01:46 But if you do succeed, the gains are huge.
    0:01:48 And you have your heart in it.
    0:01:50 You have your dreams in it.
    0:01:51 You believe in it.
    0:02:01 But also, there’s a constant rollercoaster of fear and doubt and hope and moments of triumph and moments of failure.
    0:02:04 All those go back and forth and just it’s a constant psychological turmoil.
    0:02:10 Anyway, through all that, it’s just nice to connect with other people that are going through the same thing.
    0:02:12 And that’s what Hampton is about.
    0:02:18 It does a thing where every month, eight founders face-to-face have real conversations about their daily struggles.
    0:02:23 Groups are forming in a bunch of places in New York City, Austin, San Francisco, LA, Miami, Denver, and so on.
    0:02:33 If you are a founder who’s tired of carrying it all alone, visit joinhampton.com slash lex to see if it’s a fit for you.
    0:02:37 That’s joinhampton.com slash lex.
    0:02:40 This episode is also brought to you by Finn.
    0:02:43 It’s an AI agent for customer service.
    0:02:50 So they are focused, laser focused on the customer service application and they want to do that better than anybody else in the world.
    0:02:58 In fact, if you measure by the metric of the number of resolutions, so when you have the agent resolve the customer service issue, that’s resolution.
    0:03:07 They have a 59% average resolution rate, which makes it the highest performing customer service agent on the market.
    0:03:14 It’s trusted by over 5,000 customer service leaders and even top AI companies, including Anthropic.
    0:03:23 The way they design the system is it can continuously improve from the interaction so you can continuously analyze, train, test, and deploy.
    0:03:30 Also, probably important to say, they give you a 90-day money-back guarantee.
    0:03:36 Go to fin.ai slash lex to learn more about transforming your customer service and scaling your support team.
    0:03:39 That’s fin.ai slash lex.
    0:03:47 This episode is also brought to you by Shopify, a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere with a great-looking online store.
    0:03:52 Even I figured out how to create an online store at lexfreedman.com slash store.
    0:03:54 I put up a few shirts.
    0:03:57 I haven’t done anything with it since because I’m not a serious person.
    0:04:02 There’s a lot of serious people that build real businesses on top of Shopify.
    0:04:13 It’s a platform that connects you with millions of people that want to buy stuff and gives you all the tools you need and all the integrations you need to do just that at scale.
    0:04:22 As we talked about with DHH about the incredible beauty and power of Ruby on Rails that Shopify is powered by.
    0:04:28 I have not yet built a serious sort of medium-scale project on Rails.
    0:04:30 I need to.
    0:04:38 It’s just I need to actually find things that I need to do web dev type of stuff with to inspire myself to build something useful.
    0:04:45 I don’t want to build some weird variant of a to-do list, especially now with the help of LLMs who can generate so much of the code.
    0:04:53 So I need to figure out how to learn a new framework and new programming languages when LLMs can generate so much of it.
    0:05:02 And I don’t want to do it exclusively by vibe coding because I feel like that’s not a way to learn fully a thing.
    0:05:05 But vibe coding does remove some of the friction of learning.
    0:05:07 So balancing that out is a tricky thing to do.
    0:05:11 Anyway, that’s about the programming language and the framework that powers Shopify.
    0:05:18 But Shopify itself connects buyers and sellers in an incredible scale that’s awe-inspiring.
    0:05:22 Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash lex.
    0:05:23 That’s all lowercase.
    0:05:28 Go to shopify.com slash lex to take your business to the next level today.
    0:05:36 This episode is also brought to you by Element, my daily zero sugar and delicious electrolyte mix.
    0:05:41 I’ve been traveling recently and I have a lot of Element packets with me.
    0:05:47 And I bring that and I bring bands, whatever you call them.
    0:05:48 I don’t know what they’re called.
    0:05:51 They’re like rubber bands for like basic shoulder exercises.
    0:05:59 So if I have to do a lot of either heavy lifting or heavy jiu-jitsu training, I like to warm up the shoulders really well.
    0:06:05 Probably because I have issues with shoulders from many years of playing tennis and many years of doing stupidly bench press.
    0:06:09 Anyway, I think of Element as a critical component of my workout routine.
    0:06:11 Hydrate before, rehydrate after.
    0:06:15 Fully embrace the deliciousness of watermelon salt flavor.
    0:06:17 The flavor of champions, the one I recommend.
    0:06:19 It’s been quite a while since I tried the others.
    0:06:20 They’re all good.
    0:06:23 But for me, I’m a man of focus and dedication.
    0:06:26 And I’m dedicated to watermelon salt.
    0:06:30 I think they have actually, I saw a lemonade flavor.
    0:06:32 I think a lot of people love lemonade.
    0:06:33 So maybe that’s your thing.
    0:06:35 For me, I’m sticking to watermelon salt.
    0:06:39 Get a free 8-count sample pack with any purchase.
    0:06:42 Try it at drinkelement.com slash lex.
    0:06:50 This episode was also brought to you by AG1, an all-in-one daily drink to support better health and peak performance.
    0:06:51 I travel with it.
    0:06:55 It makes me feel like I take a little piece of home with me.
    0:06:58 I drink it at least once a day, very often twice a day.
    0:07:00 And they keep innovating.
    0:07:01 They keep improving it.
    0:07:08 They recently introduced AG1 Next Gen, improving every aspect, more vitamins and minerals and upgraded probiotics.
    0:07:14 It’s funny how a morning routine can be the source of peace and happiness.
    0:07:26 Because I find that if I check my phone at all in the first couple hours of the day, I get this weird anxiety that ultimately morphs into unhappiness.
    0:07:30 And if I don’t, I’m much more likely to sort of maintain that deep focus.
    0:07:35 And a part of that early in the morning is some coffee or caffeinated drink.
    0:07:37 And then a few hours on is AG1.
    0:07:41 And it’s just many hours of deep focus in between.
    0:07:48 It makes me feel happy, makes me feel at one with the universe, and it helps me get shit done.
    0:07:55 Anyway, they’ll give you one month’s supply of fish oil when you sign up at drinkag1.com slash lex.
    0:07:58 This is the Lex Friedman Podcast.
    0:08:03 To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description or at lexfriedman.com slash sponsors.
    0:08:09 And consider subscribing, commenting, and sharing the podcast with folks who might find it interesting.
    0:08:19 I promise to work extremely hard to always bring you nuanced and long-form conversations with a wide variety of interesting people from all walks of life.
    0:08:23 And now, dear friends, here’s Demis Hassabis.
    0:08:46 In your Nobel Prize lecture, you propose what I think is a super interesting conjecture that, quote,
    0:08:54 any pattern that can be generated or found in nature can be efficiently discovered and modeled by a classical learning algorithm.
    0:08:59 What kind of patterns or systems might be included in that?
    0:09:04 Biology, chemistry, physics, maybe cosmology, neuroscience?
    0:09:06 What are we talking about?
    0:09:06 Sure.
    0:09:12 Well, look, I felt that it’s sort of a tradition, I think, of Nobel Prize lectures that you’re supposed to be a little bit provocative.
    0:09:14 And I wanted to follow that tradition.
    0:09:18 What I was talking about there is if you take a step back and you look at all the work that we’ve done,
    0:09:20 especially with the Alpha X projects.
    0:09:23 So I’m thinking Alpha Go, of course, Alpha Fold.
    0:09:30 What they really are is we’re building models of very combinatorially high-dimensional spaces that, you know,
    0:09:36 if you try to brute force a solution, find the best move and go, or find the exact shape of a protein,
    0:09:41 and if you enumerated all the possibilities, there wouldn’t be enough time in the, you know, the time of the universe.
    0:09:44 So you have to do something much smarter.
    0:09:48 And what we did in both cases was build models of those environments,
    0:09:53 and that guided the search in a smart way, and that makes it tractable.
    0:09:59 So if you think about protein folding, which is obviously a natural system, you know, why should that be possible?
    0:10:00 How does physics do that?
    0:10:02 You know, proteins fold in milliseconds in our bodies.
    0:10:08 So somehow physics solves this problem that we’ve now also solved computationally.
    0:10:13 And I think the reason that’s possible is that in nature, natural systems have structure
    0:10:18 because they were subject to evolutionary processes that shape them.
    0:10:23 And if that’s true, then you can maybe learn what that structure is.
    0:10:25 This perspective, I think, is a really interesting one.
    0:10:35 You’ve hinted at it, which is almost like crudely stated, anything that can be evolved can be efficiently modeled.
    0:10:36 Think there’s some truth to that?
    0:10:42 Yeah, I sometimes call it survival of the stabilist or something like that because, you know, it’s, of course,
    0:10:45 there’s evolution for life, living things.
    0:10:50 But there’s also, you know, if you think about geological time, so the shape of mountains,
    0:10:54 that’s been shaped by weathering processes, right, over thousands of years.
    0:10:56 But then you can even take it cosmological.
    0:11:02 The orbits of planets, the shapes of asteroids, these have all been survived kind of processes
    0:11:04 that have acted on them many, many times.
    0:11:10 So if that’s true, then there should be some sort of pattern that you can kind of reverse
    0:11:16 learn and a kind of manifold really that helps you search to the right solution, to the right
    0:11:21 shape, and actually allow you to predict things about it in an efficient way because it’s not
    0:11:23 a random pattern, right?
    0:11:28 So it may not be possible for man-made things or abstract things like factorizing large numbers
    0:11:32 because unless there’s patterns in the number space, which there might be, but if there’s
    0:11:35 not and it’s uniform, then there’s no pattern to learn.
    0:11:37 There’s no model to learn that will help you search.
    0:11:38 You have to do brute force.
    0:11:42 So in that case, you know, you maybe need a quantum computer, something like this.
    0:11:46 But in most things in nature that we’re interested in are not like that.
    0:11:51 They have structure that evolved for a reason and survived over time.
    0:11:54 And if that’s true, I think that’s potentially learnable by a neural network.
    0:12:01 It’s like nature is doing a search process and it’s so fascinating that it’s in that search
    0:12:04 process is creating systems that can be efficiently modeled.
    0:12:06 Yes, right.
    0:12:06 Yeah.
    0:12:07 So interesting.
    0:12:12 So they can be efficiently rediscovered or recovered because nature is not random, right?
    0:12:16 These, everything that we see around us, including like the elements that are more
    0:12:21 stable, all of those things, they’re subject to some kind of selection process, pressure.
    0:12:25 Do you think, because you’re also a fan of theoretical computer science and complexity,
    0:12:30 do you think we can come up with a kind of complexity class, like a complexity zoo type
    0:12:38 of class where maybe it’s the set of learnable systems, the set of learnable natural systems,
    0:12:38 LNS?
    0:12:39 Yeah.
    0:12:46 This is a demo, this new class of systems that could be actually learnable by classical systems
    0:12:50 in this kind of way, natural systems that can be modeled efficiently.
    0:12:57 I mean, I’ve always been fascinated by the P equals MP question and what is modelable by
    0:13:02 classical systems, i.e. non-quantum systems, you know, Turing machines in effect.
    0:13:07 And that’s exactly what I’m working on actually in kind of my few moments of spare time with a few
    0:13:12 colleagues about is, should there be, you know, maybe a new class of problem that is solvable by
    0:13:18 this type of neural network process and kind of mapped onto these natural systems. So, you know,
    0:13:25 the things that exist in physics and have structure. So I think that could be a very interesting new way
    0:13:29 of thinking about it. And it sort of fits with the way I think about physics in general, which is that,
    0:13:33 you know, I think information is primary. Information is the most sort of fundamental unit
    0:13:37 of the universe, more fundamental than energy and matter. I think they can all be converted into
    0:13:41 each other. But I think of the universe as a kind of informational system.
    0:13:46 So when you think of the universe as an informational system, then the P equals MP question is a,
    0:13:48 is a physics question.
    0:13:48 That’s right.
    0:13:54 And it’s a question that can help us actually solve the entirety of this whole thing going on.
    0:13:58 Yeah. I think it’s one of the most fundamental questions, actually, if you think of physics as
    0:14:03 informational. And the answer to that, I think it’s going to be, you know, very enlightening.
    0:14:10 More specific to the PNP question, this, again, some of the stuff we’re saying is kind of crazy
    0:14:15 right now, just like the Christian Atkinson Nobel Prize speech controversial thing that he said
    0:14:20 sounded crazy. And then you went and got a Nobel Prize for this with John Jumper, solved the problem.
    0:14:26 So let me, let me just stick to the P equals MP. Do you think there’s something in this thing we’re
    0:14:35 talking about that could be shown if you can do something like a polynomial time or constant time
    0:14:42 compute ahead of time and construct this gigantic model, then you can solve some of these extremely
    0:14:46 difficult problems in a theoretical computer science kind of way?
    0:14:51 Yeah. I think that there are actually a huge class of problems that could be couched in this way,
    0:14:56 the way we did alpha go and the way we did alpha fold, where, you know, you, you model what the
    0:15:01 dynamics of the system is, the, the, the, the properties of that system, the environment that
    0:15:07 you’re trying to understand. And then that makes the search for the solution or the prediction of the
    0:15:15 next step efficient, basically polynomial time. So tractable by a classical system, which a neural
    0:15:20 network is, it runs on normal computers, right? Classical computers, uh, Turing machines in effect.
    0:15:26 And, um, I think it’s one of the most interesting questions there is, is how far can that paradigm
    0:15:31 go? You know, I think we’ve proven, uh, and the AI community in general, that classical systems,
    0:15:36 Turing machines can go a lot further than we previously thought, you know, they can do things
    0:15:42 like model the structures of proteins and play go to better than world champion level. And, uh, you know,
    0:15:47 a lot of people would have thought maybe 10, 20 years ago, that was decades away, or maybe you
    0:15:52 would need some sort of quantum machines to, to quantum systems, to be able to do things like
    0:15:59 protein folding. And so I think we haven’t really, uh, even sort of scratched the surface yet of what,
    0:16:06 uh, classical systems so-called, uh, uh, could do. And of course, AGI being built on a, on a neural
    0:16:10 network system on top of a neural network system on top of a classical computer would be the ultimate
    0:16:15 expression of that. And I think the limit that, you know, the, the, what, what the bounds of that
    0:16:20 kind of system, what it can do, it’s a very interesting question and, and, and directly speaks
    0:16:21 to the P equals MP question.
    0:16:28 What do you think, again, hypothetical might be outside of this, maybe emergent phenomena.
    0:16:33 Like if you look at cellular automata, some of the, you have extremely simple systems and then
    0:16:39 some complexity emerges, maybe that would be outside or even, would you guess even that might
    0:16:43 be amenable to efficient modeling by a classical machine?
    0:16:49 Yeah. I think those systems would be right on the boundary, right? So, um, I think most emergent
    0:16:53 systems, cellular automata, things like that could be modelable by a classical system. You just sort of
    0:16:58 do a forward simulation of it and it’d probably be efficient enough. Um, of course, there’s the question
    0:17:04 of things like chaotic systems where the initial conditions really matter. And then you get to some,
    0:17:10 you know, uncorrelated end state. Now those could be difficult to model. So I think these are kind of
    0:17:15 the open questions, but I think when you step back and look at what we’ve done with the systems and the,
    0:17:21 and the problems that we’ve solved, and then you look at things like VO3 on like video generation,
    0:17:27 sort of rendering physics and lighting and things like that, you know, really in core fundamental
    0:17:31 things in physics. Um, it’s pretty interesting. I think it’s telling us something quite fundamental
    0:17:36 about how the universe is structured in my opinion. Um, so, you know, in, in a way that’s what I want
    0:17:43 to build AGI for is to help, uh, us, uh, as scientists answer these questions, uh, like P equals MP.
    0:17:48 Yeah. I think we might be continuously surprised about what is modelable by classical computers. I
    0:17:55 mean, alpha fold three on the interaction side is surprising that you can make any kind of progress
    0:18:03 on that direction. Alpha genome is surprising that you can map the genetic code to the function kind of
    0:18:07 playing with the emergent kind of phenomena. You think there’s so many combinatorial options that,
    0:18:10 and then here you go, you can find the kernel that is efficiently model.
    0:18:15 Yes. Because there’s some structure, there’s some landscape, you know, in the energy landscape
    0:18:19 or whatever it is that you can follow some gradient you can follow. And of course, what neural networks
    0:18:24 are very good at is following gradients. And so if there’s one to follow an object and you can specify
    0:18:30 the objective function correctly, you know, you don’t have to deal with all that complexity, which I think
    0:18:36 is how we maybe have naively thought about it for decades. Those problems, if you just enumerate all
    0:18:40 the possibilities, it looks totally intractable and there’s many, many problems like that. And then you
    0:18:46 think, well, it’s like 10 to the 300 possible protein structures, uh, 10 to the hundred and,
    0:18:51 you know, 70 possible go positions. All of these are way more than atoms in the universe. So how could
    0:18:57 one possibly find the right solution or predict the next step? And, and it, but it turns out that it is
    0:19:03 possible. And of course, reality in nature does do it right. Proteins do fold. So that, that gives you
    0:19:09 confidence that there must be, if we understood how physics was doing that, uh, in a sense, uh, then,
    0:19:15 and we could mimic that process, I model that process. Uh, it should be possible on our classical
    0:19:20 systems is, is, is, is basically what the conjecture is about. And of course there’s nonlinear dynamical
    0:19:26 systems, highly nonlinear dynamical systems, everything involving fluid. Yes. Right. You know,
    0:19:31 I recently had a conversation with Terence Tao who mathematically, uh, contends with a very difficult
    0:19:38 aspect of systems that have some singularities in them that break the mathematics. And it’s just
    0:19:42 hard for us humans to make any kind of clean predictions about highly nonlinear dynamical
    0:19:48 systems. But again, to your point, we might be very surprised what classical learning systems might
    0:19:53 be able to do about even fluid. Yes, exactly. I mean, the fluid dynamics, Navier-Stokes equations,
    0:19:58 these are traditionally thought of as very, very difficult, intractable kind of problems to do on
    0:20:02 classical systems. They take enormous amounts of compute, you know, weather prediction systems,
    0:20:08 you know, these kinds of things all involve fluid dynamics calculations. And, um, but again,
    0:20:14 if you look at something like VO, our video generation model, it can model liquids quite well,
    0:20:20 surprisingly well and materials, specular lighting. I love the ones where, you know, there’s, there’s
    0:20:24 people who generate videos where there’s like clear liquids going through hydraulic presses and then
    0:20:30 being squeezed out. I used to write, uh, physics engines and graphics engines and in my early days in
    0:20:36 gaming. And I know it’s just so painstakingly hard to build programs that can do that. And yet somehow
    0:20:43 these systems are, you know, reverse engineering from just watching YouTube videos. So presumably what’s
    0:20:49 happening is it’s extracting some underlying structure around how these materials behave.
    0:20:55 So perhaps there is some kind of lower dimensional manifold that can be learned if we actually fully
    0:21:00 understood what’s going on under the hood. That’s maybe, you know, maybe true of most of reality.
    0:21:06 Yeah. I’ve been continuously precisely by this aspect of VO3. I think a lot of people highlight
    0:21:11 different aspects, including the comedic and the meat and all that kind of stuff. And then the ultra
    0:21:18 realistic ability to capture humans in a really nice way that’s compelling and feels close to
    0:21:23 reality. And then combine that with native audio. All of those are marvelous things about VO3, but
    0:21:29 the exactly the thing you’re mentioning, which is the physics. Yeah. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty
    0:21:36 damn good. And then the really interesting scientific question is what is it understanding about our world
    0:21:43 in order to be able to do that? Because of the cynical take with diffusion models, there’s no way it understands
    0:21:49 anything, but it seems, I mean, I don’t think you can generate that kind of video without understanding.
    0:21:54 And then our own philosophical notion of what it means to understand then is like brought to the surface.
    0:21:58 To what degree do you think VO3 understands our world?
    0:22:04 I think to the extent that it can predict the next frames, you know, in a coherent way,
    0:22:08 that’s some, that is a form, you know, of understanding, right? Not in the anthropomorphic
    0:22:13 version of, you know, it’s not some kind of deep philosophical understanding of what’s going on.
    0:22:18 I don’t think these systems have that, but they, they certainly have modeled enough of the dynamics,
    0:22:24 you know, put it that way that they can pretty accurately generate whatever it is, eight seconds
    0:22:29 of consistent video that by eye, at least, you know, at a glance is quite hard to distinguish
    0:22:34 what the issues are. And imagine that in two or three more years time, that’s the thing I’m thinking
    0:22:38 about and how incredible that will, they will look, uh, given where we’ve come from, you know,
    0:22:44 the early versions of that, uh, uh, one or two years ago. And so, um, the rate of progress is
    0:22:50 incredible. And I think, um, I’m like you is like a lot of people love all of the, the, the,
    0:22:55 the standup comedians and the, the, the actually captures a lot of human dynamics very well and,
    0:22:59 and body language. But actually the thing I’m most impressed with and fascinated by is the physics
    0:23:07 behavior, the lighting and materials and liquids. And it’s pretty amazing that it can do that. And I
    0:23:14 think that shows it, that it has some notion of at least intuitive physics, right? Um, how things
    0:23:19 are supposed to work, uh, intuitively may be the way that a human child would understand physics,
    0:23:25 right? As opposed to, uh, you know, a PhD student really, uh, being able to unpack all the equations.
    0:23:31 It’s more of an intuitive physics understanding. Well, that intuitive physics understanding, that’s
    0:23:36 the base layer. That’s the thing people sometimes call it common sense. Again, it really understands
    0:23:41 something. I think that really surprised a lot of people. It blows my mind that I just didn’t think
    0:23:48 would be possible to generate that level of realism without understanding. There’s this notion that you
    0:23:54 can only understand the physical world by having an embodied AI system, a robot that interacts with
    0:23:59 that world. That’s the only way to construct an understanding of that world. Yeah. But VO3 is
    0:24:01 directly challenging that. Right.
    0:24:05 It feels like, yes. And it’s very interesting, you know, even if we, if you were to ask me five,
    0:24:09 10 years ago, I would have said, even though I was a must in all of this, I would have said, well,
    0:24:13 yeah, you probably need to understand intuitive physics. You know, like if I push this off the
    0:24:19 table, this glass, it will maybe shatter, you know, um, and the, and the liquid will spill out.
    0:24:23 Right. So we know all of these things, but I thought that, you know, and there’s a lot of theories
    0:24:27 in neuroscience is called action in perception where, you know, you, you need to act in the
    0:24:32 world to really truly perceive it in a deep way. And there was a lot of theories about you’d need
    0:24:38 embodied intelligence or robotics or something, or maybe at least simulated action, uh, so that you
    0:24:43 would understand things like intuitive physics. But it seems like, um, you can understand it through
    0:24:48 passive observation, which is pretty surprising to me. And, and again, I think hints at something
    0:24:54 underlying about the nature of, uh, reality in, in, in my opinion, beyond, um, just the, you know,
    0:24:59 the cool videos that it generates. Um, and, and of course there’s next stages is maybe even making
    0:25:05 those videos interactive. So, uh, one can actually step into them and move around them, um, which would
    0:25:11 be really mind blowing, especially given my games background. So you can imagine, uh, and then,
    0:25:14 and then I think, you know, you’re, we’re starting to get towards what I would call a world model,
    0:25:19 a model of how the world works, the mechanics of the world, the physics of the world and the things
    0:25:23 in that world. And of course, that’s what you would need for a true AGI system.
    0:25:29 I have to talk to you about video games. So you, you were being a bit trolly. Uh, I think you’re,
    0:25:34 you’re having more and more fun on Twitter on X, which is great to see. So guy named Jimmy Apples
    0:25:41 tweeted, let me play a video game of my VO3 videos already. Uh, Google cooks so good playable world
    0:25:47 models when spelled W E N question mark. Um, and then you quote tweeted that with now,
    0:25:53 wouldn’t that be something? So how, how hard is it to build game worlds with AI? Maybe can you look
    0:26:00 out into the future, uh, of video games five, 10 years out? What do you think that looks like?
    0:26:06 Well, games were my first love really. And doing AI for games was the first thing I did professionally
    0:26:13 in my teenage years and was the first, uh, major AI systems that I built. And, uh, I always want to
    0:26:18 have, I want to scratch that itch one day and come back to that. So, you know, and I will do, I think.
    0:26:24 And, um, I think I’d sort of dream about, you know, what would I have done back in the nineties if I’d had
    0:26:28 access to the kind of AI systems we have today. And I think you could build absolutely mind blowing
    0:26:33 games. Um, and I think the next stage is I always used to love making all the games I’ve made
    0:26:38 are open world games. So they’re games where there’s a simulation and then there’s AI characters
    0:26:44 and then the player, uh, interacts with that simulation and the simulation adapts to the way
    0:26:48 the player plays. And I always thought they were the coolest games because, uh, so games like theme
    0:26:53 park that I worked on where everybody’s game experience would be unique to them, right? Because
    0:26:58 you’re kind of co-creating the game, right? Uh, we set up the parameters, we set up initial conditions
    0:27:03 and then you as the player immersed in it. And then you are co-creating it with the, with the
    0:27:08 simulation. But of course it’s very hard to program open world games. You know, you’ve got to be able
    0:27:13 to create a content, whichever direction the player goes in and you want it to be compelling no matter
    0:27:19 what the player chooses. Um, and so it was always quite difficult to build, uh, things like cellular
    0:27:23 automata actually type of those kinds of classical systems, which created some emergent behavior.
    0:27:28 Um, but they’re always a little bit fragile, a little bit limited. Now we’re maybe on the cusp in
    0:27:33 the next few years, five, 10 years of having AI systems that can truly create around your imagination,
    0:27:40 um, can sort of dynamically change the story and storytell the narrative around, uh, and make it
    0:27:45 dramatic no matter what you end up choosing. So it’s like the ultimate choose your own adventure
    0:27:50 sort of game. And, uh, you know, I think maybe we’re within reach if you think of a kind of
    0:27:56 interactive version of VO, uh, and then wind that forward five to 10 years and, um, you know,
    0:27:57 imagine how good it’s going to be.
    0:28:03 Yeah. So you said a lot of super interesting stuff there. So one, the open world built into
    0:28:08 that as a deep personalization, the way you’ve described it. So it’s not just that it’s open
    0:28:13 world, but you can open any door and there’ll be something there. It’s that the choice of which
    0:28:21 door you’re open in an unconstrained way defines the worlds you see. So some games try to do that.
    0:28:27 They give you choice, but it’s really just an illusion of choice because the only, uh, like,
    0:28:33 like Stanley Parable, it’s, it’s, it’s really, there’s a couple of doors and it really just
    0:28:37 takes you down the narrative. Stanley Parable is a great video game. I recommend people play
    0:28:44 that kind of, uh, in a meta way, uh, mocks the illusion of choice and there’s philosophical
    0:28:50 notions of free will and so on. But, uh, I do like one of my favorite games of Elder Scrolls
    0:28:58 is Daggerfall. I believe that they really played with a, like random generation of the dungeons
    0:29:04 of if you can step in and they give you this feeling of an open world. And there you mentioned
    0:29:09 interactivity. You don’t need to interact. That’s a first step because you don’t need to interact that
    0:29:15 much. You just, when you open the door, whatever you see is randomly generated for you. And that’s
    0:29:19 already an incredible experience because you might be the only person to ever see that.
    0:29:25 Yeah, exactly. And, and so, but what you’d like is a little bit better than just sort of a random
    0:29:31 generation, right? So you’d like, uh, and, and also better than a simple AB hard code of choice,
    0:29:36 right? That’s not really, uh, open world, right? As you say, it’s just giving you the illusion of
    0:29:43 choice. What you want to be able to do is potentially anything in that game environment. Um, and I think
    0:29:48 the only way you can do that is to have, uh, generated systems, systems that, uh, will generate
    0:29:52 that on the fly. Of course, you can’t create infinite amounts of game assets, right? It’s expensive
    0:29:58 enough already how AAA games are made today. And that was obvious to, to us back in the nineties,
    0:30:03 when I was working on all these games, I think maybe black and white, uh, was the game that I worked on
    0:30:08 early stages of that, that had the still probably the best AI learning AI in it. It was an early
    0:30:13 reinforcement learning system that you, you know, you were, you were looking after this mythical creature
    0:30:18 and growing it and nurturing it. And depending how you treated it, it would treat the villagers in that
    0:30:22 world in the same way. So if you were mean to it, it would be mean. If you were good, it would be
    0:30:28 protective. And so it was really a reflection of the way you played it. So actually all of the, uh,
    0:30:33 I’ve been working on sort of simulations and AI through the medium of games at the beginning of
    0:30:38 my career. And, and really the whole of what I do today is still a follow on from, uh, those early,
    0:30:43 more hard coded ways of doing the AI to now, you know, fully general learning systems that,
    0:30:48 that are trying to achieve the same thing. Yeah. It’s been, uh, interesting, hilarious,
    0:30:54 and, uh, fun to watch you and Elon, obviously itching to create games because you’re both gamers.
    0:31:00 And one of the sad aspects of your, uh, incredible success in so many domains of science,
    0:31:07 like serious adult stuff that you might not have time to really create a game. You might end up
    0:31:14 creating the tooling that others would create the game and you have to watch others create the thing
    0:31:19 you’ve always dreamed of. Do you think it’s possible you can somehow in your extremely busy
    0:31:25 schedule, actually find time to create something like black and white, some, some, an actual video
    0:31:32 game where like you could make the childhood dream. Yeah. Well, you know, there’s two things where
    0:31:37 I think about that is maybe with vibe coding as it gets better and there’s a possibility that I could,
    0:31:41 you know, one could do that actually in the, in your spare time. So I’m quite excited about that as a,
    0:31:47 as that would be my project. If I got the time to do some vibe coding, um, I’m actually itching to do
    0:31:52 that. And then the other thing is, you know, maybe it’s a sabbatical after AGI has been safely
    0:31:56 stewarded into the world and delivered into the world, you know, that, and then working on my physics
    0:32:02 theory, as we talked about at the beginning, those would be the two, my, my two post AGI projects,
    0:32:08 let’s call it that way. I would love to see which post AGI, which you choose solving, uh, the,
    0:32:14 the problem that some of the smartest people in human history contended with. So P equals MP
    0:32:19 or creating a cool video. Yeah. Well, but they might, but in my world, they’d be related because
    0:32:26 it would be an open world simulated game, uh, as realistic as possible. So, you know, what,
    0:32:30 what is, what is the universe? That’s, that’s, that’s speaking to the same question, right?
    0:32:33 MP equals MP. I think all these things are related, at least in my mind.
    0:32:38 I mean, in a really serious way, it’s like video games, sometimes are looked down upon.
    0:32:45 That’s just this fun side activity, but especially as, uh, AI does more and more of, um, the difficult,
    0:32:54 uh, boring tasks, something that we in modern world called work, you know, video games is the thing in
    0:32:59 which we may find meaning in which we may find like what to do with our time. You could create
    0:33:06 incredibly rich, meaningful experiences. Like that’s what human life is. And then in video games,
    0:33:16 you can create more sophisticated, more diverse ways of living. Yeah. I think so. I mean, those of us who
    0:33:24 love games and I still do is, is, is, um, you know, it’s almost can let your imagination run wild, right?
    0:33:30 Like I, I used to love games, um, and working on games so much because it’s the fusion, especially in the
    0:33:36 nineties and two early two thousands, the sort of golden era, maybe the eighties of, of, of game of the games
    0:33:40 industry. And it was all being discovered. New genres were being discovered. We weren’t just making games.
    0:33:45 We felt we were, we were creating a new entertainment medium that never existed before, especially with
    0:33:49 these open world games and simulation games where you were co-create you as the player were co-creating
    0:33:55 the story. There’s no other media, uh, entertainment media where you do that, where you as the audience
    0:34:01 actually co-create the story. And of course now with multiplayer games as well, it can be a very social
    0:34:07 activity and can explore all kinds of interesting worlds in that. But on the other hand, you know,
    0:34:13 it’s very important to, um, also enjoy and experience, uh, the physical world. But the
    0:34:17 question is then, you know, I think we’re going to have to kind of confront the question again of what
    0:34:21 is the fundamental nature of reality? Uh, what is there going to be the difference between these
    0:34:28 increasingly realistic simulations and, uh, multiplayer ones and emergent, um, and what we do in the real
    0:34:35 world? Yeah, there’s clearly a huge amount of value to experiencing the real world nature. There’s
    0:34:40 also a huge amount of value in experiencing other humans directly in person, the way we’re sitting
    0:34:47 here today. But we need to really scientifically rigorously answer the question, why? Yeah. And
    0:34:53 which aspect of that can be mapped into the virtual world? Exactly. And it’s not, it’s not enough to say,
    0:34:59 yeah, you should go touch grass and hang out in nature. It’s like, why exactly is that valuable?
    0:35:04 Yes. And I guess that’s maybe the thing that’s been, uh, haunting me, obsessing me from the beginning of
    0:35:07 my career. If you think about all the different things I’ve done, that’s, they’re all related in
    0:35:13 that way. The simulation, nature of reality, and what is the bounds of, you know, what can be modeled?
    0:35:18 Sorry for the ridiculous question, but so far, what is the greatest video game of all time? What’s up
    0:35:23 there? Well, my favorite one of all time is civilization. I have to say that that was the,
    0:35:29 the, the civilization one and civilization two, my favorite games of all time. Um, I can only assume
    0:35:35 you’ve avoided the most recent one because it would probably, you would, that would be your sabbatical
    0:35:40 that you would disappear. Yes, exactly. They take a lot of time, these civilization games. So,
    0:35:47 uh, I’ve got to be careful with them. Fun question. You and Elon seem to be somehow solid gamers. Uh,
    0:35:53 is there a connection between being great at gaming and, and, uh, being great leaders of AI companies?
    0:35:59 I don’t know. I, it’s an interesting one. I mean, uh, we both love games and, uh, it’s interesting. He
    0:36:04 wrote games as well to start off with. It’s probably, especially in the era I grew up in where home
    0:36:09 computers were just became a thing, you know, in the late eighties and nineties, especially in the UK,
    0:36:13 I had a spectrum and then a Commodore Omega 500, which is my favorite computer ever.
    0:36:19 And that’s why I learned all my programming. And of course, it’s a very fun thing, uh, to program is
    0:36:26 to program games. So I think it’s a great way to learn programming probably still is. And, um, and then
    0:36:31 of course I immediately took it in directions of AI and simulations, which, so I may, it was able to
    0:36:38 express my interest in, in games and my sort of wider scientific interests altogether. And then the
    0:36:45 final thing I think that’s great about games is it fuses, um, artistic design, you know, art with the,
    0:36:51 the, the most cutting edge programming. Um, so again, in the nineties, all of the most interesting,
    0:36:57 uh, technical advances were happening in gaming, whether that was AI graphics, physics engines,
    0:37:02 uh, hardware, even GPUs, of course, were designed for gaming originally. Um, so everything that was
    0:37:09 pushing computing forward in the, in the nineties was due to gaming. So interestingly, that was where
    0:37:15 the forefront of research was going on. And it was this incredible fusion with, with art, um, you know,
    0:37:21 graphics, but also music and just the whole new media of storytelling. And I love that for me, it’s
    0:37:26 sort of multidisciplinary kind of effort is again, something I’ve enjoyed my whole, my whole life.
    0:37:32 I have to ask you, I almost forgot about one of the many, and I would say one of the most
    0:37:37 incredible things recently, uh, that somehow didn’t yet get enough attention is alpha evolve.
    0:37:43 We talked about evolution a little bit, but it’s the Google deep mind system that evolves algorithms.
    0:37:48 Yeah. Are these kinds of evolution like techniques promising as a component of future super
    0:37:52 intelligence system? So for people who don’t know, it’s kind of, um, I don’t know if it’s fair
    0:38:00 to say it’s LLM guided evolution search. Yeah. So evolutionary algorithms are doing the search
    0:38:06 and LLMs are telling you where. Yes, exactly. So LLMs are kind of proposing some possible solutions.
    0:38:12 And then you do, you use evolutionary computing on top to, to, to find some novel part of the,
    0:38:18 of the search space. So actually, I think it’s an example of very promising directions where you
    0:38:24 combine LLMs or foundation models with other computational techniques. Evolutionary methods is
    0:38:30 one, but you could also imagine Monte Carlo tree search, basically many types of search algorithms
    0:38:37 or reasoning algorithms sort of on top of, or using the foundation models as a basis. So I actually
    0:38:41 think there’s quite a lot of interesting, uh, things to be discovered probably with these sort
    0:38:47 of hybrid systems, let’s call them. But not to romanticize evolution. Yeah. I’m only human,
    0:38:52 but you think there’s some value in whatever that mechanism is? Cause we already talked about natural
    0:38:58 systems. Do you think we’re, there’s a lot of low hanging fruit of us understanding being,
    0:39:05 being able to model, uh, being able to simulate evolution and then using that, whatever we
    0:39:10 understand about that nature inspired mechanism to, to then do search better and better and better.
    0:39:16 Yes. So if you think about, uh, again, uh, breaking down the solar systems we’ve built, uh, to their
    0:39:22 really fundamental core, you’ve got like the model of the, of the underlying dynamics of the system.
    0:39:27 Uh, and then if you want to discover something new, something novel that hasn’t been seen before,
    0:39:33 um, then you need some kind of search process on top to take you to a novel region of the,
    0:39:39 of the, of the search space. And, um, you can do that in a number of ways. Evolutionary computing is
    0:39:45 one, um, with alpha go, we just use Monte Carlo tree search, right? And that’s what found move 37,
    0:39:52 the new kind of never seen before strategy in go. And so that’s how you can go beyond potentially what is
    0:39:56 already known. So the model can model everything that you currently know about, right? All the data
    0:40:01 that you currently have, but then how do you go beyond that? So that starts to speak about the
    0:40:05 ideas of creativity. How can these systems create something new fight, discover something new?
    0:40:10 Obviously this is super relevant for scientific discovery or pushing med science and medicine
    0:40:16 forward, which we want to do with these systems. And you can actually bolt on some, uh, fairly
    0:40:22 simple search systems on top of these models and get you into a new region of space. Of course,
    0:40:27 you also have to, um, make sure that, uh, you’re not searching that space totally randomly. It was
    0:40:31 to be too big. So you have to have some objective function that you’re trying to optimize and hill climb
    0:40:36 towards and that guides that search. But there’s some mechanism of evolution that are interesting,
    0:40:41 maybe in the space of programs, but then the space of programs that extremely important space. Cause you
    0:40:48 can probably generalize the, uh, to everything, but you know, for example, mutation, this is not just
    0:40:55 Monte Carlo tree search where it’s like a search. You could every once in a while combine things,
    0:41:01 yeah. Combine things out there like sub like a components of a thing. Yes. So then, you know,
    0:41:08 what evolution is really good at is not just the natural selection. It’s combining things and
    0:41:14 building increasingly complex hierarchical systems. Yes. So that component is super interesting. Yeah.
    0:41:18 Especially like with alpha evolve in the space of programs. Yeah, exactly. So there’s a,
    0:41:23 you can get a bit of an extra property out of evolutionary systems, which is some new emergent
    0:41:29 capability may come about, right? Of course, like happened with life. Interestingly with naive,
    0:41:34 uh, sort of traditional evolutionary computing methods without LLMs and the modern AI, the problem
    0:41:40 with them, they were very well studied in the nineties and early two thousands and some promising results.
    0:41:45 But the problem was they could never work out how to evolve new properties, new emergent properties.
    0:41:51 You always had a sort of subset of the properties that you put into the system, but maybe if we combine them
    0:41:56 with these foundation models, perhaps we can overcome that limitation. Obviously, uh, natural
    0:42:01 evolution clearly did because it, it did evolve new capabilities, right? So, uh, bacteria to where we
    0:42:09 are now. So clearly that it must be possible with evolutionary systems to generate, uh, new patterns,
    0:42:15 you know, going back to the first thing we talked about and, uh, new capabilities and emergent properties.
    0:42:17 And maybe we’re on the cusp of discovering how to do that.
    0:42:23 Yeah. Listen, uh, alpha wall is one of the coolest things I’ve ever seen. I’ve, I’ve, uh, uh,
    0:42:27 on my desk at home, you know, most of my time is spent behind that computer is just programming.
    0:42:37 And next to the three screens is a skull of a, uh, uh, Tiktalic, which is one of the early organisms that
    0:42:45 crawled out of the water onto land. And I just kind of watch that little guy, it’s like you, the,
    0:42:52 whatever the computation mechanism of evolution is, is quite incredible. It’s truly, truly incredible.
    0:42:57 Yeah. Now, whether that’s exactly the thing we need to do to do our search, but never, never, uh,
    0:43:03 dismiss the power of nature with what it did here. Yeah. And it’s amazing. Um, which is a relatively
    0:43:09 simple algorithm, right? Effectively. And it can generate all of this immense complexity emerges,
    0:43:15 obviously running over, you know, 4 billion years of time, but, but it’s, it’s, it’s, you know,
    0:43:20 you can think about that as again, a process, a search process that ran over the physics substrate
    0:43:25 of the universe for a long amount of computational time, but then it generated all this incredible,
    0:43:31 uh, rich diversity. So, uh, so many questions I want to ask you. So one, you do have a dream.
    0:43:38 One of the natural systems you want to try to model is, uh, is a cell. That’s a beautiful dream.
    0:43:45 Uh, I could ask you about that. I also just for that purpose on the AI scientist front, just broadly.
    0:43:52 So there’s a essay, uh, from Daniel Cucataglio, Scott Alexander, and others that outlines steps
    0:43:59 along the way to get to ASI and has a lot of interesting ideas in it. One of which is, uh,
    0:44:07 including a superhuman coder and a superhuman AI researcher. And in that there’s a term of research
    0:44:12 taste. That’s really interesting. So in everything you’ve seen, do you think it’s possible for AI
    0:44:21 systems to have research taste to help you in the way that AI co-scientists does to help steer human,
    0:44:29 human brilliant scientists, and then potentially by itself to figure out what are the directions
    0:44:34 where you want to generate truly novel ideas? Because that seems to be like a
    0:44:37 really important component of how to do great science.
    0:44:42 Yeah. I think that’s going to be one of the hardest things to, to, uh, mimic or model is,
    0:44:47 is this, this idea of taste or, or judgment. I think that’s what separates the, you know,
    0:44:52 the, the great scientists from the good scientists, like all, all professional scientists are good
    0:44:56 technically, right? Otherwise it wouldn’t have been made it, uh, that far in, in academia and things
    0:45:01 like that. But then do you have the taste to sort of sniff out what the right direction is,
    0:45:06 what the right experiment is, what the right question is. So the crystal is picking the right question is,
    0:45:12 is the hardest part of science, um, and, and making the right hypothesis. And, um, that’s what,
    0:45:17 you know, today’s systems definitely, they can’t do. So, you know, I often say it’s harder to come
    0:45:22 up with a conjecture, a really good conjecture than it is to solve it. So we may have systems soon
    0:45:28 that can solve pretty hard conjectures. Um, you know, I, I, um, in math Olympiad problems,
    0:45:32 where we, we, you know, alpha proof last year, our system got, you know, silver medal in that
    0:45:37 really hard problems. Maybe eventually we’ll better solve a millennium price kind of problem,
    0:45:43 but could a system have come up with a conjecture worthy of study that someone like Terence Tao would
    0:45:47 have gone, you know what, that’s a really deep question about the nature of maths or the nature of
    0:45:54 numbers or the nature of physics. And that is far harder type of creativity. And we don’t really know,
    0:45:59 today’s systems clearly can’t do that. And we’re not quite sure what that mechanism would be. This
    0:46:04 kind of leap of imagination, like, like Einstein had when he came up with, you know, special relativity
    0:46:10 and then general relativity with the knowledge he had at the time. And for conjecture, the,
    0:46:16 you want to come up with a thing that’s interesting. It’s amenable to proof. Yes. So like,
    0:46:20 it’s easy to come up with a thing that’s extremely difficult. Yeah. It’s easy to come up with a thing
    0:46:25 that’s extremely easy, but that, at that very edge, that sweet spot, right. Of, of basically advancing
    0:46:30 the science and splitting the hypothesis space into two ideally, right. Whether if it’s true or not true,
    0:46:37 you, you’ve learned something really useful and, um, and, and that’s hard and, and, and, and making
    0:46:43 something that’s also, uh, you know, falsifiable and within sort of the technologies that you have,
    0:46:49 you currently have available. So it’s a very creative process, actually highly creative process that,
    0:46:54 um, I think just a kind of naive search on top of a model won’t be enough for that.
    0:47:00 Okay. The idea of splitting the hypothesis space into super interesting. So, uh, I’ve heard you say
    0:47:06 that there’s basically no failure in, or failure is extremely valuable if it’s done. If you construct
    0:47:11 the questions, right. If you construct the experiments, right. If you design them right, that failure or
    0:47:17 success are both useful. So perhaps because it splits the hypothesis basically too, it’s like a binary search.
    0:47:23 That’s right. So when you do like, you know, real blue sky research, there’s no such thing as failure,
    0:47:28 really, as long as you’re picking experiments and hypotheses that, that, that, that meaningfully
    0:47:32 spit the hypothesis space. So, you know, and you learn something, you can learn something kind of
    0:47:37 equally valuable from, uh, an experiment that doesn’t work. That should tell you if you’ve designed
    0:47:42 an experiment well, and your hypotheses are interesting, it should tell you a lot about where to go next.
    0:47:49 And, um, and then it’s you’re, you’re effectively doing a search process, um, and using that information
    0:47:50 in, in, you know, very helpful ways.
    0:47:59 So to go to your dream of modeling a cell, um, what are the big challenges that lay ahead for us to
    0:48:04 make that happen? We should maybe highlight that alpha for, I mean, there’s just so many leaps.
    0:48:05 Yeah.
    0:48:10 So alpha fold solved, if it’s fair to say protein folding, and there’s so many incredible things we
    0:48:16 could talk about there, including the open sourcing, uh, everything you’ve released alpha fold three
    0:48:23 is doing protein, RNA, DNA interactions, which is super complicated and fascinating. This, uh, amenable
    0:48:29 to modeling alpha genome, uh, predicts, uh, how small genetic changes. Like if we think about single
    0:48:36 mutations, how they link to actual, uh, function. So, um, those are, it seems like it’s creeping along.
    0:48:42 So sophisticated, to much more complicated, uh, things like a cell, but a cell has a lot of
    0:48:44 really complicated components.
    0:48:50 Yeah. So what I’ve tried to do throughout my career is I have these really grand dreams, and then I try
    0:48:53 to, as you’ve noticed, and then I try to break, but I try to break them down at any, you know,
    0:48:59 it’s easy to have a kind of, uh, a crazy ambitious dream, but the, the, the trick is how do you break it
    0:49:05 down into manageable, achievable, uh, interim steps that are meaningful and useful in their own
    0:49:11 right. And so virtual cell, which is what I call the project of modeling a cell, uh, I’ve had this
    0:49:16 idea, you know, of wanting to do that for maybe more like 25 years. And, uh, I used to talk with
    0:49:20 Paul nurse, who is a bit of a mentor of mine in biology. He runs the, the, you know, he founded the
    0:49:27 Crick Institute and, and won the Noah prize in, in 2001, uh, is, is we’ve been talking about it since,
    0:49:33 you know, before the, you know, in the nineties and, um, and I come used to come back to every five
    0:49:37 years is like, what would you need to model of the full internals of a cell so that you could do
    0:49:43 experiments on the virtual cell and what those experiment, you know, in silico and those predictions
    0:49:47 would be useful for you to save you a lot of time in the wet lab, right? That would be the dream.
    0:49:52 Maybe you could a hundred X speed up experiments by doing most of it in silico, the search in silico,
    0:49:57 and then you do the validation step in the wet lab. That would be, that’s the, that’s the dream.
    0:50:02 And so, uh, but maybe now finally, uh, so I was trying to build these components, alpha fold being
    0:50:09 one that, that would allow you eventually to model the full interaction, a full simulation
    0:50:14 of a cell. And I’d probably start with the yeast cell. And partly that’s what Paul nurse studied
    0:50:18 because the yeast cell is like a full organism. That’s a single cell, right? So it’s the kind
    0:50:24 of simplest single cell organism. And so it’s not just a cell, it’s a full organism. And, um,
    0:50:31 and yeast is very well understood. And so that would be a good candidate for, uh, a kind of full simulated
    0:50:37 model. Now alpha fold is the, is the solution to the kind of static picture of what does a, what does
    0:50:42 a protein look 3d structure protein look like a static picture of it. But we know that biology,
    0:50:46 all the interesting things happen with the dynamics, the interactions, and that’s what alpha fold three
    0:50:51 is, is the first step towards is modeling those interactions. So first of all, pair wise, you know,
    0:50:56 proteins with proteins, proteins with RNA and DNA, but then, um, the next step after that would be
    0:51:01 modeling maybe a whole pathway, maybe like the TOR pathway that’s involved in cancer or something like
    0:51:05 this. And then eventually you might be able to model, you know, a whole cell.
    0:51:09 Also, there’s another complexity here that stuff in a cell happens at different timescales.
    0:51:16 Is that tricky? It’s like the, you know, protein, uh, folding is, you know, super fast.
    0:51:21 Yes. Um, I don’t know all the biological mechanisms, but some of them take a long time.
    0:51:26 Yeah. And so is that, that’s a level. So the levels of interaction has a different temporal
    0:51:27 scale that you have to be able to model.
    0:51:32 So that would be hard. So you’d probably need several simulated systems that can interact at
    0:51:37 these different temporal dynamics, or at least, uh, maybe it’s like a hierarchical system. So, um,
    0:51:40 you can jump up and down the, the different temporal stages.
    0:51:49 So can you avoid, I mean, one of the challenges here is not avoid simulating, for example, the,
    0:51:53 the, the quantum mechanical aspects of any of this, right? You want to not over model.
    0:52:00 You can skip ahead to just model the really high level things that get you a really good
    0:52:01 estimate of what’s going to happen.
    0:52:04 Yes. So you, you’ve got to make a decision when you’re modeling any natural system, what is the
    0:52:09 cutoff level of the granularity that you’re going to model it to that then captures the dynamics
    0:52:14 that you’re interested in. So probably for a cell, I would hope that would be the protein level,
    0:52:20 uh, and that one wouldn’t have to go down to the atomic level. Um, so, you know, and of course,
    0:52:26 that’s where alpha fold stock kicks in. So that would be kind of the basis. And then you’d build these,
    0:52:33 um, uh, higher level simulations that, um, take those as building blocks and then you get the
    0:52:34 emergent behavior.
    0:52:39 Yeah. Apologize for the pothead questions ahead of time, but, uh, do you think, uh,
    0:52:48 we’ll be able to simulate a model, the origin of life? So being able to simulate the first
    0:52:53 from, from non-living organisms, the, the birth of a living organism.
    0:52:58 I think that’s a, one of the, of course, one of the deepest and most fascinating questions. Um,
    0:53:03 I love that area of biology, you know, uh, there’s people like, there’s a great book by Nick Lane,
    0:53:09 one of the top, top experts in this area called the 10 great inventions of, of, of evolution. I think it’s
    0:53:13 fantastic. And it also speaks to what the great filters might be, but you know, prior or are they
    0:53:18 ahead of us? I think, I think they’re most likely in the past. If you read that book of how unlikely
    0:53:23 to go, you know, have any life at all. And then single cell to multi-cell seems an unbelievably
    0:53:28 big jump that took like a billion years, I think on earth to do. Right. So it shows you how hard it
    0:53:29 was. Right.
    0:53:33 Bacteria were super happy for a very long, very long time before they captured mitochondria somehow.
    0:53:39 Right. I don’t see why not, why AI couldn’t help with that. Some kind of simulation again,
    0:53:44 it’s again, it’s a bit of a search process through a combinatorial space. Here’s like all the,
    0:53:49 you know, the chemical soup that, that you start with the primordial soup that, you know,
    0:53:55 maybe it was on earth near these hot vents. Here’s some initial conditions. Can you generate
    0:53:58 something that looks like a cell? So perhaps that would be a next stage after the virtual
    0:54:04 cell project is, well, how, how could you actually, um, something like that emerge from the chemical
    0:54:09 soup? Well, I would love it if there was a move 37 for the origin of life. I think that’s
    0:54:13 one of the sorts of great mysteries. I think ultimately what we will figure out is their
    0:54:17 continuum. There’s no such thing as a line between non-living and living, but if we can make that
    0:54:24 rigorous, that the very thing from the big bang to today has been the same process. If we can break
    0:54:30 down that wall that we’ve constructed in our minds of the actual origin of, from non-living to living,
    0:54:35 and it’s not a line that it’s a continuum that connects physics and chemistry and biology.
    0:54:40 Yeah. There’s no line. I mean, this is my whole reason why I worked on AI and AGI my whole life,
    0:54:45 because I think it can be the ultimate tool to help us answer these kinds of questions. And
    0:54:51 I don’t really understand why, um, you know, the average person doesn’t think like worry about this
    0:54:56 stuff more. Like how, how, how can we not have a good definition of life and not, and not living and
    0:55:02 non-living and the nature of time and let alone consciousness and gravity and all these things.
    0:55:07 It’s, it’s just, and quantum mechanics, weirdness. It’s just, to me, it’s, I’ve always had this,
    0:55:12 this sort of screaming at me in my face. The whole, I need that. It’s getting louder. You know,
    0:55:16 it’s like how, what is going on here? You know, in, in, in, and I mean that in the deeper sense,
    0:55:21 like in the, you know, the nature of reality, which has to be the ultimate question, uh, that would
    0:55:25 answer all of these things. It’s sort of crazy. If you think about it, we can stare at each other
    0:55:30 and all these living things all the time. We can inspect it microscopes and take it apart,
    0:55:35 uh, almost down to the atomic level. And yet we still can’t answer that clearly in a simple way.
    0:55:39 That question of how do you define living? It’s kind of amazing.
    0:55:44 Yeah. Living. You can kind of talk your way out of thinking about, but like consciousness,
    0:55:48 like we have this very obviously subjective conscious experience. Like we’re at the center
    0:55:54 of our own world and it, it feels like something. And then how, how, how are you not screaming?
    0:56:00 Yeah. At the mystery of it all. We haven’t, I mean, but really humans have been contending
    0:56:05 with the mystery of the world around them, uh, for a long, long, there’s a lot of mysteries
    0:56:12 like what’s up with the sun and, and the rain. Yeah. Like what’s that about? And then like last year,
    0:56:16 we had a lot of rain and this year we don’t have rain. Like, what did we do wrong?
    0:56:19 Humans have been asking that question for a long time.
    0:56:23 Exactly. So we’re quite, I guess we’ve developed a lot of mechanisms to cope with this, uh,
    0:56:27 these deep mysteries that we can’t fully, we can see, but we can’t fully understand. And
    0:56:32 we have to have to just get on with daily life and, and, and we get, we keep ourselves busy,
    0:56:34 right? In a way, do we keep ourselves distracted?
    0:56:39 I mean, weather is one of the most important questions of human history. We still, that’s,
    0:56:44 that’s the go-to small talk direction of the weather, especially in England.
    0:56:51 And then it’s, which is, you know, famously is an extremely difficult system to model. And, uh,
    0:56:56 even that system, uh, uh, Google deep mind has made progress on.
    0:57:01 Yes. We’ve, we are, we’ve created the, the best weather prediction systems in the world,
    0:57:06 and they’re better than traditional fluid dynamics sort of systems that usually calculated on massive
    0:57:12 supercomputers takes days to calculate it. Uh, we’ve managed to model a lot of the weather dynamics
    0:57:18 dynamics with neural network systems without where the next system. And again, it’s interesting that
    0:57:23 those kinds of dynamics can be modeled, even though they’re very complicated, almost bordering on chaotic
    0:57:28 systems. In some cases, a lot of the interesting aspects of that, um, uh, can be modeled by these
    0:57:33 neural network systems, including very recently we had, you know, cyclone prediction of where,
    0:57:37 you know, paths of hurricanes might go, of course, super useful, super important for the world.
    0:57:42 And, and, and it’s super important to do that very timely and very quickly and as well as accurately.
    0:57:47 And, uh, I think it’s very promising direction again of, you know, simulating and, uh, so that you can
    0:57:51 run forward predictions and simulations of very complicated real world systems.
    0:57:57 I should mention that, uh, I’ve got a chance in, uh, Texas to meet a community of folks called the
    0:57:58 storm chasers.
    0:57:59 Yes.
    0:58:03 And what’s really incredible about them. I need to talk to them more is they’re extremely tech savvy
    0:58:07 because what they have to do is they have to use models to predict where the storm is.
    0:58:14 So there it’s this, it’s, it’s this beautiful mix of like crazy enough to like go into the eye of the
    0:58:19 storm and like, in order to protect your life and predict where the extreme events are going to be,
    0:58:23 they have to have increasingly sophisticated models of, uh, of weather.
    0:58:24 Yeah.
    0:58:24 Yeah.
    0:58:31 It’s, it’s a beautiful balance of like being in it as living organisms and the, the cutting
    0:58:35 edge of science. So they actually might be using a deep mind system. So that’s.
    0:58:38 Yeah, they are. Hopefully they are. And I’d love to join them on one of those.
    0:58:41 They look amazing. Right. To actually experience it one time.
    0:58:46 Exactly. And then also to experience the correct prediction of where something will come
    0:58:48 and how it’s going to evolve. It’s incredible.
    0:58:56 Yeah. You’ve estimated that we’ll have AGI by 2030. Um, so there’s interesting questions around that.
    0:59:04 How will we actually know that we got there? Uh, and, uh, what may be the move quote,
    0:59:12 move 37 of AGI. My estimate is sort of 50% chance by in the next five years. So, you know, by 2030,
    0:59:17 let’s say. And, uh, so I think there’s a good chance that that could happen. Part of it is what,
    0:59:20 what is your definition of AGI. Of course, people are arguing about that now. And,
    0:59:26 and, uh, mine’s quite a high bar and always has been of like, can we match the cognitive
    0:59:31 functions that the brain has? Right. So we know our brains are pretty much general Turing machines,
    0:59:38 approximate. And of course we created incredible modern civilization with our minds. So that also
    0:59:45 speaks to how general the brain is. And, um, for us to know, we have a true AGI, we would have to like,
    0:59:49 make sure that it has all those capabilities. It isn’t kind of a jagged intelligence where some
    0:59:55 things it’s really good at like today’s systems, but other things it’s really, uh, flawed at. And,
    0:59:58 and that’s what we currently have with today’s systems. They’re not consistent. So you’d want that
    1:00:04 consistency of intelligence across the board. And then we have some missing, I think, capabilities,
    1:00:09 like sort of, uh, the true invention capabilities and creativity that we were talking about earlier.
    1:00:14 So you’d want to see those, how you test that. Um, I think you just test it. One way to do it would
    1:00:20 be kind of brute force test of tens of thousands of cognitive tasks that, um, you know, we know that
    1:00:27 humans can do, uh, and maybe also make the system available to, uh, a few hundred of the world’s top
    1:00:33 experts, uh, Terence Tows of each, each subject area and see if they can find, you know, given,
    1:00:39 give them a month or two and see if they can find an obvious flaw in the system. And if they can’t,
    1:00:43 then I think you’re, you’re pretty, uh, you know, pretty, you can be pretty confident. We have a,
    1:00:44 a fully general system.
    1:00:48 Maybe to push back a little bit, it seems like humans are really incredible
    1:00:55 as the intelligence improves across all domains to take it for granted. Uh, like you mentioned,
    1:01:03 Dr. Terence Tao, uh, these brilliant experts, they might quickly in a span of weeks take for granted
    1:01:08 all the incredible things it can do and then focus in while ha ha right there. You know, I, I consider
    1:01:19 myself, uh, first of all, human. Yeah. Uh, I identify as human. Um, I, you know, some people listen to me
    1:01:25 talk and they’re like, that guy is not good at talking, the stuttering, the, you know, so like even
    1:01:31 humans have obvious across domains limits, uh, even just outside of calculus, mathematics and physics
    1:01:38 and so on. It, I, I wonder if it will take something like a move 37. So on the positive
    1:01:46 side versus like a barrage of 10,000 cognitive tasks where it would be one or two where it’s like,
    1:01:47 yes, holy shit.
    1:01:53 Exactly. So I think there’s the sort of blanket testing to just make sure you’ve got the consistency,
    1:02:00 but I think there are the sort of lighthouse moments like the move 37 that I would be looking for. So
    1:02:07 one would be inventing a new conjecture or a new hypothesis about physics like Einstein did. So
    1:02:12 maybe you could even run the back test of that very rigorously, like have a cutoff of knowledge,
    1:02:18 cutoff of 1900 and then give the system everything that was, you know, that was written up to 1900 and
    1:02:22 then, and then see if it could come up with special relativity and general relativity, right? Like
    1:02:28 Einstein did that, that would be an interesting test. Another one would be, can it invent a game
    1:02:33 like go not just come up with move 37, a new strategy, but can it invent a game that’s as deep
    1:02:39 as aesthetically beautiful, as elegant as go. And those are the sorts of things I would be looking out for,
    1:02:44 uh, uh, and probably a system being able to do, uh, uh, several of those things, right. For it to be
    1:02:50 very general, um, not just one domain. And so I think that would be the signs, at least that I would
    1:02:56 be looking for that we’ve got a system that’s AGI level. And then maybe to fill that out, you would
    1:03:00 also check their consistency, you know, make sure there’s no holes in that system either.
    1:03:05 Yeah. Something like a new conjecture or scientific discovery, that would be a cool feeling.
    1:03:10 Yeah. That would be amazing. So it’s not, not just helping us do that, but actually coming up with
    1:03:16 something brand new. And you would be in the room for that. And so it would be like probably two or
    1:03:22 three months before announcing it. And you would just be sitting there trying not to tweet.
    1:03:28 something like that. Exactly. It’s like, what is this amazing new, you know, physics, uh, idea. And
    1:03:34 then we would probably check it with world experts in that domain, right. And validate it and kind of
    1:03:41 go through its workings. And it, I guess it would be explaining its workings to, um, yeah, be an amazing
    1:03:45 moment. Do you worry that we as humans, even expert humans, like you might miss it?
    1:03:51 Well, it may be pretty complicated. So it could be the analogy I give there is, I don’t think it will be,
    1:03:57 um, uh, uh, totally mysterious to the, to the best human scientists, but it may be a bit like,
    1:04:04 for example, in chess, if I was to talk to Gary Kasparov or Magnus Carlsen and play a game with them,
    1:04:08 and they make a brilliant move, I might not be able to come up with that move, but they could explain
    1:04:13 why afterwards that move made sense. And we will be able to understand it to some degree,
    1:04:17 not to the level they do, but you know, if they were good at explaining, which is actually part of
    1:04:22 intelligence too, is being able to explain in a simple way that what you’re thinking about. Um,
    1:04:26 uh, I think that that will be very possible for the best human scientists.
    1:04:31 But I wonder, maybe you can, you can educate me on the side of go. I wonder if there’s moves from
    1:04:36 Magnus or Gary where they at first will dismiss it as a bad move.
    1:04:41 Yeah, sure. It could be. But then afterwards they’ll figure out with their intuition that,
    1:04:45 that this, why this works. And then, and then, and then empirically, the nice thing about games is
    1:04:49 one of the great things about games is you can, it’s a sort of scientific test. Does it,
    1:04:54 do you win the game or not win? And then, um, that tells you, okay, that move in the end was
    1:04:59 good. That strategy was good. And then you can go back and analyze that and, and, and, and explain
    1:05:05 even to yourself a little bit more why explore around it. And that’s how chess analysis and things
    1:05:09 like that works. So perhaps that’s why my brain works like that. Cause I I’ve been doing that since
    1:05:13 I was four and you’re trained, you know, it’s sort of hardcore training in that way.
    1:05:17 But even, even now, like when I generate code,
    1:05:24 there is this kind of nuanced, fascinating contention that’s happening where I might
    1:05:30 at first identify as a set of generated code is incorrect in some interesting nuanced ways.
    1:05:35 But then I’m always have to ask the question, is there a deeper insight here that
    1:05:41 I’m the one who’s incorrect? And that’s going to, as the systems get more and more intelligent,
    1:05:46 you’re going to have to contend with that. It’s like, what, what, what do you, is this a bug or
    1:05:50 a feature where you just came up with? Yeah. And they’re going to be pretty complicated to do,
    1:05:55 but of course it will be, you can imagine also AI systems that are producing that code or whatever that
    1:06:00 is. And then human programmers looking at, but also not unaided with the help of AI tools,
    1:06:05 tools as well. So it’s going to be kind of an interesting, you know, maybe different AI tools
    1:06:09 to the ones that they’re more, you know, kind of monitoring tools to the ones that generated it.
    1:06:17 So if we look at an AGI system, sorry to bring it back up, but Alpha Evolve, super cool. So Alpha
    1:06:24 Evolve enables on the programming side, something like recursive self-improvement, potentially.
    1:06:30 Like what, if we can imagine what that AGI system, maybe not the first version, but if
    1:06:34 a few versions beyond that, what does that actually look like? Do you think it will be
    1:06:39 simple? Do you think it will be something like a self-improving program and a simple one?
    1:06:44 I mean, potentially that’s possible. I would say, um, I’m not sure it’s even desirable because that’s
    1:06:50 a kind of like hard takeoff scenario, but, but you, you, these current systems like Alpha Evolve,
    1:06:55 they have, you know, human in the loop deciding on various things. They’re separate hybrid systems
    1:07:01 that interact. Uh, one could imagine eventually doing that end to end. I don’t see why that wouldn’t
    1:07:06 be possible, but right now, um, you know, I think the systems are not good enough to do that in terms of
    1:07:11 coming up with the architecture of the code. Um, and again, it’s a little bit reconnected to
    1:07:16 this idea of coming up with a new conjectural hypothesis, how they’re good if you give them
    1:07:21 very specific instructions about what you’re trying to do. Um, but if you give them a very vague,
    1:07:26 high level instruction, that wouldn’t work currently. Like, uh, and I think that’s related to this idea of
    1:07:31 like invent a game as good as go, right? Imagine that was the prompt that’s, that’s pretty underspecified.
    1:07:36 And so the current systems wouldn’t know, I think what to do with that, how to narrow that down to
    1:07:40 something tractable. And I think there’s similar, like, look, just make a better version of yourself.
    1:07:45 That’s too, that’s too unconstrained, but we’ve done it in, you know, in, and as you know, with Alpha
    1:07:51 Evolve, like things like faster matrix multiplication. So when you, when you hone it down to a very specific
    1:07:56 thing you want, um, it’s very good at incrementally improving that. But at the moment, these are more
    1:08:01 like incremental improvements, sort of small iterations. Whereas if, you know, if you wanted
    1:08:07 a big leap in, uh, understanding, you’d need a, you need a much larger, uh, advance.
    1:08:13 Yeah. But it could also be sort of to push back against hard takeoff scenario. It could be just
    1:08:21 a sequence of, um, incremental improvements like matrix multiplication. Like it has to sit there for days
    1:08:26 thinking how to incrementally improve a thing and that it does so recursively. And as you do more
    1:08:32 and more improvement, it’ll slow down. So there’ll be a, like, uh, like, uh, the path to AGI won’t be
    1:08:39 like a, uh, it’d be a gradual improvement over time. Yes. If it was just incremental improvements,
    1:08:43 that’s how it would look. So the question is, could it come up with a new leap, like the transformers
    1:08:49 architecture, right? Could it have done that back in 2017 when, you know, we did it and brain did it.
    1:08:54 And it’s, it’s not clear that, that these systems, something that AlphaVolv wouldn’t be able to do,
    1:08:59 make such a big leap. So for sure, these systems are good. We have systems, I think that can do
    1:09:03 incremental hill climbing. And that’s a kind of bigger question about, is that all that’s needed
    1:09:08 from here? Or do we actually need one or two more, um, uh, big breakthroughs?
    1:09:13 And can the same kind of systems provide the breakthroughs also? So make it a bunch of
    1:09:18 S curves, like incremental improvement, but also every once in a while leaps.
    1:09:24 Yeah. I don’t think anyone has systems that can have shown unequivocally those big leaps that,
    1:09:28 that, that, right. We have a lot of systems that do the hill climbing of the S curve that you’re
    1:09:31 currently on. Yeah. And that would be the move 37.
    1:09:37 Yeah. I think it would be a leap. Um, something like that. Uh, do you think the scaling laws are
    1:09:43 holding strong on the pre-training, post-training test time compute? Uh, do you, uh, on the flip side
    1:09:46 of that anticipate AI progress hitting a wall?
    1:09:52 We certainly feel there’s a lot more room just in the scaling. So, um, actually all steps,
    1:09:58 pre-training, post-training and inference time. So, uh, there’s sort of three scalings that are
    1:10:06 happening concurrently. Um, and we, again, there it’s about how innovative you can be. And we, you know,
    1:10:11 we pride ourselves on having the broadest and, um, deepest research bench. Uh, we have amazing,
    1:10:16 you know, incredible, uh, researchers and, uh, people like Noam Shazir, who, you know,
    1:10:21 came up with Transformers and, and Dave Silver, you know, who led the AlphaGo project and so on.
    1:10:28 And, um, it’s, it’s, it’s that research base means that if some new, new breakthrough is required,
    1:10:33 like an AlphaGo or Transformers, uh, I would back us to be the place that does that.
    1:10:38 So I’m actually quite like it when the terrain gets harder, right? Because then it veers more from just
    1:10:44 engineering to, to true research and, you know, research plus engineering, and that’s our sweet spot.
    1:10:50 And I, I think that’s harder. It’s harder to invent things than to, than to, um, you know,
    1:10:56 fast follow. And, um, so, you know, we don’t know, I would say it’s a, it’s kind of 50, 50,
    1:11:02 whether new things are needed or whether the scaling, the existing stuff is going to be enough. And so
    1:11:07 in true kind of empirical fashion, we’re pushing both of those as hard as possible, the new blue sky
    1:11:13 ideas and, you know, maybe about half our resources on that and then, and then, uh, scaling to the max,
    1:11:18 the, the current, the current capabilities. And, um, we’re still seeing some, you know,
    1:11:22 fantastic progress on, uh, each different version of Gemini.
    1:11:25 That’s interesting. The way you put it in terms of the deep bench,
    1:11:35 that if, uh, progress towards AGI is more than just scaling compute. So the engineering side of the
    1:11:41 problem and is more on the scientific side where there’s breakthroughs needed, then you feel confident
    1:11:47 deep mind as well, uh, Google deep mind as well positioned to kick ass in that domain.
    1:11:51 Well, I mean, if you look at the history of the last decade or 15 years, um, it’s been,
    1:11:55 I mean, you know, maybe, I don’t know, 80, 90% of the breakthroughs that more that underpins
    1:12:00 modern AI field today was from, you know, originally Google brain, Google research and deep mind. So,
    1:12:03 yeah, I would back that to continue. Hopefully.
    1:12:09 Uh, so on the data side, are you concerned about running out of high quality data, especially high
    1:12:14 quality human data? I’m not very worried about that partly because I think there’s enough data,
    1:12:19 data, uh, or, and it’s been proven to get the systems to be pretty good. And this goes back
    1:12:24 to simulations. Again, if you do, you have enough data to make simulations or so that you can create
    1:12:30 more synthetic data that are from the right distribution, obviously that’s the key. So you
    1:12:35 need enough real world data in order to be able to, uh, uh, create those kinds of generator data
    1:12:39 generators. And, um, I think that we’re at that step at the moment.
    1:12:44 Yeah. You’ve done a lot of incredible stuff on the side of science and biology doing a lot with
    1:12:48 not so much data. Yeah. I mean, it’s still a lot of data, but I guess enough.
    1:12:56 Take that going. Exactly. Exactly. Uh, how crucial is the scaling of compute to building AGI? This is a
    1:13:03 question. That’s an engineering question. It’s a, almost a geopolitical question because it also
    1:13:09 integrated into that is the supply chains and energy, a thing that you care a lot about,
    1:13:13 which is, um, potentially fusion. So innovating on the side of energy also, do you think we’re
    1:13:15 going to keep scaling compute?
    1:13:19 I think so for several reasons. I think compute there’s, there’s the amount of compute you have
    1:13:25 for training, uh, often it needs to be co-located. So actually even like, you know, uh, bandwidth
    1:13:30 constraints between data centers can affect that. So it’s, it’s, it’s, there’s additional constraints
    1:13:34 even there. And that that’s important for training, obviously the largest models you can,
    1:13:41 but there’s also, because now AI systems are in products and being used by billions of people around
    1:13:46 the world, you need a ton of inference compute now. Um, and then on top of that, there’s the thinking
    1:13:52 systems, the new paradigm, uh, of the last year that, uh, where they get smarter, the longer amount of
    1:13:58 inference time you give them at test time. So all of those things need a lot of compute. And I don’t
    1:14:04 really see that slowing down. Um, and as AI systems become better, they’ll become more useful and
    1:14:08 there’ll be more demand for them. So both from the training side, the training side actually is,
    1:14:13 is only just one part of that may even become the smaller part of, of what’s needed, um, uh,
    1:14:19 in the overall compute that that’s required. Yeah. That’s one sort of almost meme-y kind
    1:14:25 of thing, which is like the success and the incredible aspects of VO3. There’s, uh, people
    1:14:29 kind of make fun of like the more successful it becomes the, you know, the servers are sweating.
    1:14:32 Yes. Yeah, yeah, exactly. We did a little
    1:14:38 video of, of, of the servers frying eggs and things. And, um, that’s right. And, and, and we’re
    1:14:42 going to have to figure out how to do that. Um, there’s a lot of interesting hardware innovations
    1:14:46 that we do, as you know, we have our own TPU line and we’re looking at like inference only things,
    1:14:51 inference only chips, and how we can make those more efficient. We’re also very interested in building AI
    1:14:57 systems. And we have done the help with energy usage. So help, um, data center energy, like for
    1:15:03 the cooling systems, be efficient, um, grid optimization. Um, and then eventually things
    1:15:08 like helping with, uh, plasma containment fusion reactors, we’ve done lots of work on that with
    1:15:13 commonwealth fusion. And also, uh, one could imagine reactor design. Um, and then material design,
    1:15:18 I think is one of the most exciting new types of solar material, solar panel material, super room
    1:15:24 temperature superconductors has always been on my list of dream breakthroughs and, um, optimal batteries.
    1:15:29 And I think a solution to any, you know, one of those things would be absolutely revolutionary
    1:15:34 for, you know, climate and energy usage. And we’re probably close, you know, and again,
    1:15:38 in the next five years to having AI systems that can materially help with those problems.
    1:15:43 If you were to bet, sorry for the ridiculous question, what, what is the main source of energy
    1:15:49 in like 20, 30, 40 years? Do you think it’s going to be nuclear fusion?
    1:15:55 I think fusion and solar are the two that I, I would bet on. Um, solar, I mean, you know,
    1:16:00 it’s the fusion reactor in the sky, of course, and I think really the problem there is, is,
    1:16:04 is batteries and transmission. So, you know, as well as more efficient, more and more efficient
    1:16:09 solar material, perhaps eventually, you know, in space, you know, these kinds of Dyson sphere type
    1:16:17 ideas and fusion, I think is definitely doable seems, uh, if we have the right design of reactor
    1:16:23 and we can control the plasma and, uh, fast enough and so on. And I think both of those things will
    1:16:27 actually get solved. So we’ll probably have at least, those are probably the two primary
    1:16:31 sources of renewable, clean, almost free, or perhaps free energy.
    1:16:38 What a time to be alive. If I, uh, traveled into the future with you a hundred years from now,
    1:16:45 how much would you be surprised if we’ve passed a type one Kardashev scale civilization?
    1:16:50 I would not be that surprised if there’s a, like a hundred year timescale from here. I mean,
    1:16:54 I think it’s pretty clear if we crack the energy problems in one of the ways we’ve just discussed
    1:17:01 fusion or, or very efficient solar. Um, then if energy is kind of free and renewable and clean,
    1:17:08 um, then that solves a whole bunch of other problems. So for example, the water access problem
    1:17:13 goes away because you can just use desalination. We have the technology. It’s just too expensive.
    1:17:18 So only, you know, uh, fairly wealthy countries like Singapore and Israel and so on, like actually
    1:17:23 use it. But, but if it was cheap, then every, then, you know, all countries that have a coast could,
    1:17:28 but also you’d have unlimited rocket fuel. You could just separate seawater out into hydrogen and oxygen
    1:17:36 using energy and that’s rocket fuel. So, uh, combined with, you know, Elon’s amazing self landing rockets,
    1:17:41 then it could be like, you sort of like a bus service to, to space. So that opens up, you know,
    1:17:47 incredible new resources and domains, uh, asteroid mining, I think will become a thing and maximum
    1:17:51 human flourishing to the stars. Like that’s what I, uh, dream about as well as like Carl Sagan’s sort
    1:17:57 of idea of bringing consciousness to the universe, waking up the universe. And I think human civilization
    1:18:03 will do that in the full sense of time. If we get AI right and, uh, and, and, and crack some of
    1:18:07 these problems with it. Yeah. I wonder what it would look like if you’re just a tourist flying through
    1:18:14 space, you would probably notice earth because if you solve the energy problem, you would see a lot of
    1:18:21 space rockets probably. So it would be like traffic here in London, but in space, it’s just a lot of
    1:18:27 rockets. Yes. And then you would probably see floating in space, some kind of source of energy,
    1:18:34 like solar. Yeah. Potentially. So earth would just look more on the surface, more, um, technological.
    1:18:40 And then, then you would use the power of that energy then to preserve the natural. Yes. Like
    1:18:43 the rainforest and all that kind of stuff. Exactly. Because for the first time in, in human history,
    1:18:51 we wouldn’t be, uh, resource constrained. And I think that could be amazing new era for humanity,
    1:18:57 where it’s not zero sum, right? I have this land, you don’t have it. Or if we take, you know, if the
    1:19:01 tigers have their forest, then the, the local villagers can’t, what are they going to use?
    1:19:07 I think that this will help a lot. No, it won’t solve all problems because there’s still other human,
    1:19:12 uh, foibles that will, will, will still exist, but it will at least remove one. I think one of the big
    1:19:19 vectors, which is scarcity of resources, you know, including land and more materials and energy.
    1:19:22 And, um, we, you know, we should be, I sometimes call it like, and others call it about this kind
    1:19:27 of radical abundance era where, um, there’s plenty of resources to go around. Of course,
    1:19:32 the next big question is making sure that that’s fairly, you know, shared fairly, uh,
    1:19:37 and everyone in society benefits from that. So there is something about human nature where
    1:19:45 I go, you know, it’s like Borat, like my neighbor, like, like you start trouble. We, we, we do start
    1:19:52 conflicts and that’s why games throughout, as I’m learning actually more and more, even in ancient
    1:19:59 history serve the purpose of pushing people away from war, actually a hot war. So maybe we can figure
    1:20:06 out increasingly sophisticated video games that pull us, they, they give us that, uh, that scratch
    1:20:13 the itch of like conflict, whatever that is about, about us, the human nature, and then avoid the actual
    1:20:21 hot wars that would come with increasingly sophisticated technologies, because we’re now we’ve
    1:20:26 long past the stage where the weapons we’re able to create can actually just destroy all of human
    1:20:34 civilization. So it’s no longer, um, that’s no longer a great way to, uh, start shit with your
    1:20:39 neighbor. It’s better to play a game of chess or football or football. Yeah. Yeah. And I think,
    1:20:45 I mean, I think that’s what my modern sport is. So, and I love football watching it and, and I just feel
    1:20:50 like, uh, and I used to play it a lot as well. And it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s very visceral and
    1:20:55 it’s tribal. And I think it does channel a lot of those energies into a, which I think is a kind
    1:21:02 of human need to belong to some, some group. And, um, but into a, into a, into a fun way,
    1:21:08 a healthy way, and, and a not, and not destructive way, kind of constructive, uh, thing. And I think
    1:21:12 going back to games again is I think they’re originally why they’re so great as well for kids
    1:21:16 to play things like chess is they’re great little microcosm simulations of the world that they’re
    1:21:20 simulations of the world too. They’re simplified versions of some real world situation, whether it’s
    1:21:26 poker or, or go or chess, different aspects or diplomacy, different aspects of, of the real
    1:21:32 world and allows you to practice at them too. And, and cause you know, how many times do you get to
    1:21:37 practice a massive decision moment in your life? You know, what job to take, what university go to,
    1:21:41 you know, you get maybe, I don’t know, a dozen or so key decisions one has to make, and you’ve got to
    1:21:46 make those as best as you can. Um, and games is a kind of safe environment, repeatable environment
    1:21:52 where you can get better at your decision-making process. Um, and it maybe has this additional
    1:21:58 benefit of channeling some energies into, uh, into more creative and constructive pursuits.
    1:22:02 Well, I think it’s also really important to practice, um, losing and winning, right?
    1:22:07 Like losing is a really, you know, that’s why I love games. That’s why I love even, um, things like, uh,
    1:22:13 Brazilian jiu-jitsu where you can get your ass kicked in a safe environment over and over.
    1:22:18 It reminds you about the way, about physics, about the way the world works, about the,
    1:22:23 sometimes you lose, sometimes you win. You can still be friends with everybody, but that, that feeling
    1:22:30 of losing, I mean, it’s a weird one for us humans to like, really like make sense of like,
    1:22:33 that’s just part of life. That is a fundamental part of life is losing.
    1:22:37 Yeah. And I think the martial arts, as I understand it, but also in things like,
    1:22:41 like chess is a lot, at least the way I took it, it’s a lot to do with self-improvement,
    1:22:47 self-knowledge, you know, that, okay. So I did this thing. It’s not about really being the other
    1:22:52 person. It’s about maximizing your own potential. If you do in a healthy way, you learn to use victory
    1:22:57 and losses in a way, don’t get carried away with victory and, and think you’re the, just the best in
    1:23:02 the world and, and, and the losses keep you humble and always knowing there’s always something more
    1:23:07 to learn. There’s always a bigger expert that you can mentor you. You know, I think you learn that I’m
    1:23:13 pretty sure in martial arts. And, and, and I think that’s also the way that at least I was trained in
    1:23:17 chess. And so in the same way, and it can be very hardcore and very important. And of course you want
    1:23:22 to win, but you also need to learn how to deal with setbacks, uh, in a, in a healthy way that,
    1:23:27 and, and, and, and wire that, that feeling that you have when you lose something into a constructive
    1:23:31 thing of next time I’m going to improve this, right. Or get better at this.
    1:23:36 There is something that’s a source of happiness, a source of meaning that improvements that it’s not
    1:23:37 about the winning or losing.
    1:23:39 Yes. The mastery. Yeah.
    1:23:43 There’s nothing more satisfying in a way is like, oh, wow, this thing I couldn’t do before.
    1:23:48 Now I can. And, and, and again, games and physical sports and mental sports,
    1:23:52 they’re ways of measuring. They’re beautiful because you can measure that, that progress.
    1:23:56 Yeah. I mean, there’s something about, that is why I love role-playing games. Like the, uh,
    1:24:02 number go up of like on the skill tree. Like literally that is a source of meaning for us
    1:24:07 humans, whatever. Yeah. We’re quite, we’re quite addicted to this sort of, yeah, these numbers going
    1:24:12 up and, uh, and, and, and, and maybe that’s why we made games like that because obviously that is
    1:24:15 something where we’re, we’re, we’re hill climbing systems ourselves, right.
    1:24:19 Yeah. It would be quite sad if we didn’t have any mechanism.
    1:24:23 Different color belts. We do this everywhere, right. Where we just have this thing that
    1:24:27 I don’t want to dismiss that. That is a source of deep meaning for us humans.
    1:24:33 Um, so one of the incredible stories on the business, on the leadership side is, um, what
    1:24:40 Google has done over the past year. So I, uh, I think it’s fair to say that Google was losing on
    1:24:47 the LLM product side, uh, a year ago with Gemini 1.5 and now it’s winning with Gemini 2.5 and you took
    1:24:52 the helm and you led this effort. What did it take to go from, let’s say, quote unquote losing to
    1:24:55 quote unquote winning in the, in the span of a year?
    1:25:00 Yeah. Well, firstly, it’s absolutely incredible team that we have, you know, led by Corey and Jeff
    1:25:07 Dean and, and Oriol and the amazing team we have on Gemini, absolutely world-class. So you can’t do it
    1:25:13 without the best talent. Um, and of course you have, you know, we have a lot of great compute as well,
    1:25:19 but then it’s the research culture we’ve created, right. And basically coming together, both different
    1:25:24 groups in, in Google, you know, there was Google brain world-class team and, and then the old deep
    1:25:31 mind and pulling together all the best people and the best ideas and gathering around to make the
    1:25:38 absolute greater system we could. And it was been hard. Um, but we’re all very competitive. Uh, and we,
    1:25:44 you know, love research. This is so fun to do. Um, and we, you know, it’s great to see our trajectory.
    1:25:49 It wasn’t a given, but we’re very pleased with, um, the, the, where we are in the rate of progress
    1:25:54 is the most important thing. So if you look at where we’ve come to from two years ago to one year
    1:25:59 ago to now, you know, I think our, we call it relentless progress along with relentless shipping
    1:26:05 of that progress is, um, being very successful. And, you know, um, it’s unbelievably competitive,
    1:26:11 uh, the whole space, the whole AI space with some of the greatest entrepreneurs and leaders,
    1:26:16 uh, and companies in the world all competing now because everyone’s realized how important
    1:26:20 AI is. Um, and it’s very, you know, been pleasing for us to see that progress.
    1:26:25 You know, Google is a gigantic company. Uh, can you speak to the natural things that happen
    1:26:30 in that case is the bureaucracy that emerges? Like you want to be careful, like, you know,
    1:26:35 like the, the, the natural kind of there’s, uh, there’s meetings and there’s managers and that,
    1:26:39 like what, what are some of the challenges from a leadership perspective of breaking through that
    1:26:46 in order to, like you said, ship like the number of products. Yeah. Gemini related products has been
    1:26:51 shipped over the past year. It’s just insane. Right. It is. Yeah, exactly. That’s, that’s what
    1:26:57 relentlessness looks like. Um, I think it’s, it’s a question of like any big company, you know, ends up
    1:27:02 having, uh, a lot of layers of management and things like that. It’s sort of the nature of how it works.
    1:27:09 Um, but I still operate and I was always operating with old deep mind as a, as a startup, still large
    1:27:14 one, but still as a startup. And that’s what we still act like today as with Google deep mind and
    1:27:21 acting with decisiveness and the energy that you get from the best smaller organizations. And we try to
    1:27:26 get the best of both worlds where we have this incredible billions of users surfaces, uh, incredible
    1:27:32 products that we can power up with our AI and our, and our research. Um, and that’s amazing.
    1:27:36 And you can, you know, that’s very few places in the world. You can get that do incredible world-class
    1:27:41 research on the one hand, and then plug it in and improve billions of people’s lives the next day.
    1:27:48 Uh, that’s a pretty amazing combination and we’re continually fighting and cutting away bureaucracy
    1:27:53 to allow the research culture and the relentless shipping culture to flourish. And I think we’ve
    1:27:58 got a pretty good balance whilst being responsible with it, you know, as you have to be as a large
    1:28:03 company and also, uh, with a number of, you know, uh, huge products surfaces that we have.
    1:28:09 Uh, so funny thing you mentioned about like the, the surface of the billion. I had a conversation
    1:28:15 with a guy named, um, brilliant guy, uh, here at the British museum called Irvin Finkel. He’s a world
    1:28:24 expert at Cuneiforms, which is a ancient writing on tablets. And he doesn’t know about Chad GPT or
    1:28:31 Gemini. He doesn’t even know anything about AI, but this first encounter with this AI is AI mode on
    1:28:36 Google. Yes. He’s like, is that what you’re talking about? This AI mode. And then, you know,
    1:28:40 it’s just, it’s just a reminder that there’s a large part of the world that doesn’t know about
    1:28:46 this AI thing. Yeah. I know. It’s funny. Cause if you live on, uh, X and Twitter, and I mean,
    1:28:50 it’s sort of, at least my feed, it’s all AI and, and there’s certain places where, you know, in the
    1:28:55 valley and certain pockets where everyone’s just, all they’re thinking about is AI, but a lot of the
    1:29:01 normal world hasn’t, hasn’t come across it yet, but that’s a great responsibility to the, their first
    1:29:07 interaction. Yeah. Um, the, the, the grand scale of the rural India or anywhere across the world.
    1:29:11 Right. And we want it to be as good as possible. And in a lot of cases, it’s just under the hood
    1:29:18 powering, making something like maps or search work better. And, um, and ideally for a lot of those
    1:29:22 people should just be seamless. It’s just new technology that makes their lives more, you know,
    1:29:27 productive and, and, and helps them. A bunch of folks on the Gemini product and engineering teams
    1:29:32 spoken extremely highly of you on another dimension that I almost didn’t even expect. Cause I kind of
    1:29:39 think of you as the like deep scientists and caring about these big research scientific questions,
    1:29:44 but they also said you’re a great product guy, like how to create a thing that a lot of people would use
    1:29:51 and enjoy using. So can you maybe speak to what it takes to create a AI based product that a lot of
    1:29:56 people don’t enjoy using? Yeah. Well, I mean, again, that comes back from my game design days where I used
    1:30:00 to design games for millions of gamers, people forget about that. I’ve had experience with
    1:30:05 cutting edge technology in product that, that, that, that is how games was in the nineties.
    1:30:12 And so I love actually the combination of cutting edge research and then being applied in a product
    1:30:18 and to power a new experience. And so, um, I think it’s the same skill really of, of, you know,
    1:30:24 imagining what it would be like to use it viscerally, um, and having good taste coming back to earlier,
    1:30:29 the same thing that’s useful in science, um, I think is, is, can also be useful in,
    1:30:35 in product design. And, um, I I’ve just had a very, you know, always being a sort of multidisciplinary
    1:30:42 person. So I don’t see, uh, the boundaries really between, you know, arts and sciences or product and
    1:30:46 research. It’s, it’s a continuum for me. I mean, I only work on, I like working on products that are
    1:30:50 cutting edge. I wouldn’t be able to, you know, have cutting edge technology under the hood. I wouldn’t
    1:30:55 be excited about them if they were just run-of-the-mill products. Um, so it requires this
    1:30:57 invention creativity capability.
    1:31:03 What are some specific things you kind of learned about when you, um, even on the LLM side, you’re
    1:31:10 interacting with Gemini, you’re like, this doesn’t feel like the layout, the interface, maybe the trade
    1:31:18 opportunity, the latency, like how, how to present to the user, how long to wait and how that waiting
    1:31:22 is shown or the reasoning capabilities. There’s some interesting things. Cause like you said, it’s the
    1:31:27 very cutting edge. We don’t know how to present it, how to present it correctly. So is there some
    1:31:28 specific things you’ve, you’ve learned?
    1:31:34 I mean, it’s such a fast evolving space. We’re evaluating this all the time, but where we are
    1:31:39 today is that you want to continually simplify things. Um, the, whether that’s the interface
    1:31:44 or the interact, what you build on top of the model, you kind of want to get out of the way of the model.
    1:31:49 The model train is coming down the track and it’s improving unbelievably fast. This relentless progress
    1:31:54 we talked about earlier, you know, you look at 2.5 versus 1.5 and it’s just a gigantic
    1:31:59 improvement. And we expect that again for the future versions. And so the models are becoming
    1:32:04 more capable. So you’ve got the interesting thing about the design space in, in, in today’s world,
    1:32:09 these AI first products is you’ve got to design, not for what the thing can do today, the technology
    1:32:15 can do today, but in a year’s time. So you actually have to be a very technical product person
    1:32:21 because, uh, you’ve got to kind of have a good intuition for, and feel for, okay, that thing that
    1:32:26 I’m dreaming about now can’t be done today, but is the research track on schedule to basically
    1:32:31 intercept that in six months or a year’s time. So you kind of got to intercept where this highly
    1:32:37 changing technology is going as well as the, um, uh, new capabilities are coming online all the time
    1:32:42 that you didn’t realize before that can allow like deep research to work, or now we’ve got video
    1:32:48 generation. What do we do with that? Um, this multimodal stuff, you know, is it one question I have is,
    1:32:54 is it really going to be the current UI that we have today? These text box chats seems very unlikely
    1:33:00 once you think about these super multimodal, uh, uh, systems, shouldn’t it be something more like
    1:33:05 minority report where you’re, you’re sort of vibing with it in a, in a coat, in a kind of collaborative
    1:33:10 way, right? It seems very restricted to that. I think we’ll look back on today’s interfaces and
    1:33:15 products and systems as quite archaic in maybe in a, just a couple of years. So I think there’s a lot of
    1:33:21 space actually for innovation to happen on the product side, as well as the research side.
    1:33:28 And then we’re offline talking about this keyboard is the open question is how, when, and how much will
    1:33:34 we move to audio as the primary way of interacting with the machines around us versus typing stuff?
    1:33:39 Yeah. I mean, typing is a very low bandwidth way of doing, even if you’re very fast, you know,
    1:33:44 typer. And I think we’re going to have to start utilizing other devices, whether that’s smart glasses,
    1:33:52 you know, audio earbuds, um, and eventually maybe some sorts of neural devices where we can increase
    1:33:57 the input and the output bandwidth to something, uh, you know, maybe a hundred X of what is today.
    1:34:04 I think that, you know, under appreciated art form is the interface design, but I think you can not
    1:34:09 unlock the power of the intelligence of a system. If you don’t have the right interface, their interface
    1:34:15 is really the way you unlock its power. Yeah. It’s such an interesting question of how to do that.
    1:34:20 Yeah. So how you would think like getting out of the way is in real art form.
    1:34:24 Yes. You know, it’s the sort of thing that I guess Steve Jobs always talked about, right? It’s
    1:34:29 simplicity, beauty, and elegance that we want. Right. And we’re not there. Nobody’s there yet,
    1:34:34 in my opinion. And that’s what I would like us to get to. Again, it sort of speaks to like go again,
    1:34:38 right. As a game, the most elegant, beautiful game. Can you, you know, that, uh, can you make an
    1:34:43 interface as beautiful as that? And actually, I think we’re going to enter an era of AI generated
    1:34:48 interfaces that are probably personalized to you. So it fits the way that you, your aesthetic,
    1:34:54 your feel, the way that your brain works. And, um, and, and, and the AI kind of generates that
    1:34:58 depending on the task, you know, that feels like that’s probably the direction we’ll end up in.
    1:35:03 Yeah. Cause some people are power users and they want every single parameter on screen, everything,
    1:35:08 everything based, like perhaps me with a keyboard, keyboard based navigation. I like to have shortcuts
    1:35:12 for everything. And some people like the minimalism. Just hide all of that complexity. Yeah,
    1:35:18 exactly. Yeah. Uh, well, I’m glad you have a Steve Jobs mode in you as well. This is great.
    1:35:23 Einstein mode, Steve Jobs mode. Um, all right, let me try to trick you into answering a question.
    1:35:29 When, when will Gemini three come out? This is before or after DTS six, the world waits for both.
    1:35:37 And what does it take to go from two five to three Oh, because it seems like there’s been a lot of
    1:35:42 releases of two five, which are already leaps in performance. So what, what does it even mean to
    1:35:48 go to a new version? Is it about performance? Is this about a completely different flavor of an
    1:35:55 experience? Yeah. Well, so the way it works with our different, uh, version numbers is we, you know,
    1:36:01 we try to collect, so maybe it takes, you know, roughly six months or something to, to do a new
    1:36:08 kind of full run and the full productization of a new version. And during that time, lots of new,
    1:36:13 interesting research iterations and ideas come up and we sort of collect them all together that,
    1:36:18 you know, you could imagine the last six months worth of interesting ideas on the architecture
    1:36:23 front. Uh, maybe it’s on the data front. It’s like many different possible things. And we collect,
    1:36:28 package that all up, test, which ones are likely to be useful for the next iteration,
    1:36:34 and then bundle that all together. And then we start the new, you know, giant hero training run.
    1:36:39 Right. And, and then, uh, and then of course that gets monitored. Uh, and then at the end,
    1:36:42 then there’s the, of the pre-training, then there’s all the post-training, there’s many different ways
    1:36:46 of doing that, different ways of patching it. So there’s a whole experiment and phase there,
    1:36:50 which you can also get a lot of gains out. And that’s where you see the version numbers usually
    1:36:56 referring to the base model, the pre-trained model, and then the interim versions of 2.5,
    1:37:01 you know, and the different sizes and the different little additions, they’re often, uh, patches or
    1:37:07 post-training ideas that can be done afterwards, uh, off the same basic architecture. And then of
    1:37:12 course, on top of that, we also have different sizes, pro and flash and flashlight that are often
    1:37:17 distilled from the biggest ones, you know, the flash model from the pro model. And that means we have a
    1:37:23 range of different choices. If you are the developer of, do you want to prioritize performance
    1:37:29 or speed, right? And cost. And we like to think of this Pareto frontier of, of, you know, on the one
    1:37:35 hand, uh, the Y axis is, you know, like performance. And then the, the, the X axis is, you know, cost or
    1:37:43 latency and speed, uh, basically. And we, we have models that completely define the frontier. So whatever
    1:37:48 your trade-off is that you want as an individual user, or as a, as a developer, you should find one of
    1:37:54 our models satisfies that constraint. So behind diversion changes, there is a big hero run.
    1:38:05 Yes. And then there’s, uh, just an insane complexity of productization. Then there’s the distillation of
    1:38:11 the different sizes along that Pareto front. And then as each step you take, you realize there might be a
    1:38:14 cool product. There’s side quests. Yes, exactly.
    1:38:18 But, and then you also don’t want to take too many side quests because then you have a million versions
    1:38:22 of a million products. Yes, precisely. It’s very unclear. Yeah. But you also get super excited because
    1:38:28 it’s super cool. Yeah. Like how does even you look at videos, very cool. How does it fit into the bigger
    1:38:34 thing? Exactly. Exactly. And then you’re constantly, this process of converging upstream, we call it, you
    1:38:40 know, ideas from the, from the product surfaces or, or, or from the post training and, and even further
    1:38:45 downstream than that, you, you kind of upstream that into the, the core model training for the next
    1:38:51 run. Right. So then the main model, the main Gemini track becomes more and more general and eventually,
    1:38:52 you know, AGI.
    1:38:55 One hero run at a time.
    1:38:56 Yes, exactly. A few hero runs later.
    1:39:05 Yeah. So sometimes when you release these new versions or every version really, are benchmarks, um,
    1:39:09 productive or counterproductive for showing the performance of a model?
    1:39:14 You need them. And, and I bet it’s important that you don’t overfit to them, right? So there
    1:39:18 shouldn’t be the end with a be all and end all. So there’s, there’s LM arena or used to be called
    1:39:23 a LMSS. That’s one of them that turned out sort of organically to be one of the, the main ways people
    1:39:28 like to test these systems, at least the chatbots. Um, obviously there’s loads of academic benchmarks on
    1:39:33 from, from, from the test, uh, mathematics and coding ability, general language ability,
    1:39:38 science ability, and so on. And then we have our own internal benchmarks that we care about.
    1:39:43 It’s a kind of multi-objective, you know, optimization problem, right? You want, you don’t want to be
    1:39:47 good at just one thing. We’re trying to build general systems that are good across the board
    1:39:54 and you try and make no regret, uh, improvements. So where you improve in like, you know, coding,
    1:39:59 uh, but it doesn’t reduce your performance in other areas. Right. So that’s the hard part. Cause you,
    1:40:04 you can, of course you could put more coding data in, or you could put more, um, I don’t know,
    1:40:10 gaming data in, but then does it make worse your language, uh, system or, or, uh, in your
    1:40:14 translation systems and other things that you care about. So it’s, you’ve got to kind of continually
    1:40:21 monitor this increasingly larger and larger suite of, of benchmarks. And also there’s, uh, when you stick
    1:40:27 them into products, these models, you also care about the direct usage and the direct stats and the
    1:40:32 signals that you’re getting from the end users, whether they’re coders or, or, or the average
    1:40:35 person using, uh, using the chat interfaces. Yeah. Because ultimately you want to measure
    1:40:41 the usefulness, but it’s so hard to convert that into a number. Right. It’s, it’s really vibe based
    1:40:47 benchmarks across a large number of users. And it’s hard to know. And I, it would be just terrifying to
    1:40:54 me to, you know, you have a much smarter model, but it’s just something vibe based. It’s not,
    1:40:59 not, not, not quite working. That’s just scary because, and everything you just said, it has to be smart
    1:41:06 and useful across so many domains. So you, you get super excited because it’s all of a sudden solving
    1:41:11 programming problems. It’d never been able to solve before, but now it’s crappy poetry or something.
    1:41:18 And it’s just, I don’t know. That’s a stressful, that’s so difficult, um, to balance and because
    1:41:23 you can’t really trust the benchmarks. You really have to trust the end users. Yeah. And then other
    1:41:28 things that are even more is a terror come into play. Like, um, you know, the style of the persona
    1:41:35 of the, the, the system, you know, how it, you know, is it verbose? Is it succinct? Is it humorous?
    1:41:39 You know, and, and different people like different things. So, um, you know, it’s very interesting.
    1:41:44 It’s almost like cutting edge part of psychology research or personal personality research. You
    1:41:49 know, I used to do that in my PhD, like five factor personality. What do we actually want our
    1:41:54 systems to be like? And different people will like different things as well. So these are all just sort
    1:41:59 of new problems in product space that I don’t think have ever really been tackled before, but, um,
    1:42:03 we’re going to sort of rapidly have to deal with now. I think it’s a super fascinating space
    1:42:08 developing the character of the thing. Yeah. And in so doing, it puts a mirror to ourselves.
    1:42:14 What are the kinds of things, um, that we like because prompt engineering allows you to control
    1:42:22 a lot of those elements, but can the product, uh, make it easier for you to, uh, control the
    1:42:26 different flavors of those experiences, the different characters that you interact with? Yeah, exactly.
    1:42:31 So, so what’s the probability of Google DeepMind winning? Well, I don’t see it as sort of winning.
    1:42:36 I mean, I think we need to think winning is the wrong way to look at it given how important
    1:42:41 and consequential what it is we’re building. So funnily enough, I don’t, I try not to view
    1:42:46 it like a game or competition, even though that’s a lot of my mindset. It’s, it’s about, in my
    1:42:51 view, all of us have those of us at the leading edge, uh, have a responsibility to, um, steward
    1:42:56 this unbelievable technology that could be used for incredible good, but also has risks.
    1:43:02 Um, steward it safely into the world for the benefit of humanity. That’s always, um, what
    1:43:07 I’ve, um, uh, I dreamed about and what we’ve always tried to do. And I hope that’s what
    1:43:11 eventually the community, maybe the international community will rally around when it becomes
    1:43:16 obvious that as we get closer and closer to, to AGI that, um, that’s what’s needed.
    1:43:21 I agree with you. I think that’s beautifully put. You’ve said that, um, you talk to and
    1:43:27 are on good terms with the leads of some of these, uh, labs as the competition heats up.
    1:43:32 Um, how hard is it to maintain sort of those relationships?
    1:43:38 It’s been okay. So if I tried to pride myself in being, uh, collaborative, I’m a collaborative
    1:43:42 person. Research is a collaborative endeavor. Science is a collaborative endeavor, right? It’s
    1:43:46 all good for humanity. In the end, if you cure incredible, you know, terrible diseases and you
    1:43:52 come with an incredible cure, this is net win for humanity. And the same with energy, all of the
    1:43:57 things that I’m interested in, in, in, in helping solve with AI. So I just want that technology to
    1:44:02 exist in the world and be used for the right things. And, and, and the, the kind of the benefits of
    1:44:08 that, the productivity benefits of that being shared for every, the benefit of everyone. So I try to
    1:44:12 maintain good relations with all the leading lab people. They’ve very interesting characters, many
    1:44:17 of them, as you might expect. Um, but yeah, I’m on good terms. I hope with pretty much all of them.
    1:44:23 And, uh, I, I think that’s going to be important when, when things get even more serious than they
    1:44:28 are now, uh, that there are those communication channels and, uh, that’s what will facilitate,
    1:44:34 uh, cooperation or collaboration. If that’s what is required, especially on things like safety.
    1:44:40 Yeah. I hope there’s some collaboration on stuff that’s, uh, sort of less high stakes and in so doing
    1:44:45 serves as a mechanism for maintaining friendships and relationships. So for example, I think the internet
    1:44:50 would love it if you and Elon somehow collaborate on creating a video game, that kind of thing that I
    1:44:56 think that enables camaraderie and good terms and also you two are legit gamers. So it’s just fun to,
    1:45:00 yeah, fun to, yeah, that would be awesome. And we’ve talked about that in the past and it may be a cool
    1:45:05 thing that, that, you know, we can do. And I agree with you. It’d be nice to have, um, kind of side
    1:45:12 projects in a way where, where one can just lean into the collaboration aspect of it. And it’s a sort of,
    1:45:18 uh, win-win for both sides. And it’s, um, and it kind of builds up that, that, that, uh, collaborative
    1:45:24 muscle. I see the scientific endeavor as that kind of side project for humanity. Yeah. And I think deep
    1:45:30 Google deep mind has been really pushing that. Uh, I would love it if to see other labs do more
    1:45:34 scientific stuff and then collaborate. Cause it just seems like easier to collaborate on the big
    1:45:38 scientific questions. I agree. And I would love to see a lot of people, all of the other labs talk
    1:45:42 about science, but I think we’re really the only ones using it for science and doing that.
    1:45:47 And that’s why projects like AlphaFold are so important to me. And I think to our mission is to
    1:45:54 show, uh, how AI can this, you know, be clearly used in a very concrete way for the benefit of
    1:45:59 humanity. And, and also we spun out companies like Isomorphic off the back of AlphaFold to do drug
    1:46:03 discovery. And it’s going really well and build sort of, you know, you can think of build additional
    1:46:09 AlphaFold type type systems to go into chemistry space to help accelerate drug design. And the
    1:46:14 examples I think we need to show, uh, and society needs to understand how well AI can bring these
    1:46:20 huge benefits. Well, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for pushing the scientific efforts forward
    1:46:25 with, with rigor, with fun, with humility, all of it. I just love to see it. And still talking about
    1:46:32 P equals MP, I mean, it’s just incredible. So I love it. Um, there are, there’s been, uh, seemingly a war
    1:46:38 for talent. Some of it is meme. I don’t know. Um, what do you think about meta buying up talent with
    1:46:45 huge salaries and, and the heating up of this battle for talent? And I should say that I think a lot of
    1:46:50 people see DeepMind as a really great place to do, uh, cutting edge work for the reasons that you’ve
    1:46:57 outlined is like, there’s this vibrant scientific culture. Yeah. Well, look, I, of course, um, you
    1:47:02 know, there’s a strategy that, that meta is taking right now. I think that, um, from my perspective,
    1:47:07 at least, I think the people that are real, uh, believers in the mission of AGI and what it can
    1:47:12 do and understand the real consequences, both good and bad from that. And what’s what that responsibility
    1:47:18 entails. I think they’re mostly doing it to be like myself, to be on the frontier of that research.
    1:47:23 So, you know, they can help influence the way that goes and steward that technology safely into the
    1:47:28 world. And, you know, meta right now are not at the frontier. Maybe they’ll, they’ll manage to get
    1:47:32 back on there. And, um, you know, it’s probably rational what they’re doing from their perspective
    1:47:36 because they’re behind and they need to do something. But I think, um, there’s more important
    1:47:40 things than, than just money. Of course, one has to pay, you know, people, their market rates and
    1:47:45 all of these things, and that continues to go up. Um, but as pro and, and, and I was expecting this
    1:47:50 because more and more people are finally realizing leaders of companies, what I’ve always known
    1:47:56 for 30 plus years now, which is the AGI is the most important technology probably that’s
    1:48:00 ever going to be invented. So in some senses it’s, it’s rational to be doing that. But I
    1:48:05 also think there’s a much bigger question. I mean, people in AI these days are very well
    1:48:10 paid. You know, I remember when we were starting out back in 2010, you know, I didn’t even pay
    1:48:13 myself a couple of years because there wasn’t enough money. We couldn’t raise any money. And
    1:48:18 these days interns are being paid, you know, the amount that we raised as our first entire seat
    1:48:23 round. So it’s pretty funny. And I remember the days where we used, I used to have to, to work for
    1:48:27 free and, and almost pay my own way to do an internship. Right now it’s all the other way
    1:48:32 around, but that’s just how it is. It’s the new world. And, um, but I think that, you know,
    1:48:36 we’ve been discussing like what happens post AGI and energy systems are solved and so on.
    1:48:41 What is even money going to mean? So I think, uh, you know, in the economy and, and we’re going to
    1:48:46 have much bigger issues to work through and how does the economy function in that world and companies.
    1:48:52 So I think, you know, it’s a little bit of a side issue about, uh, uh, salaries and things of like
    1:48:58 that today. Yeah. When you’re facing such gigantic consequences and, and gigantic, fascinating
    1:49:03 scientific questions, which may be only a few years away. So, so on the practical sort of pragmatic
    1:49:09 sense, uh, if we zoom in on jobs, we can look at programmers because it seems like AI systems are
    1:49:15 currently doing incredibly well at programming and increasingly. So, so a lot of people that, uh,
    1:49:22 program for a living, love programming are worried they will lose their jobs. How worried should they
    1:49:28 be? Do you think? And what’s the right way to, uh, sort of adjust to the new reality and ensure that
    1:49:31 you survive and thrive as a human in the programming world?
    1:49:36 Well, it’s interesting that programming, and it’s again, counterintuitive to what we thought
    1:49:41 years ago, maybe that some of the skills that we think of as harder skills are turned out maybe to be
    1:49:46 the easier ones for various reasons, but you know, coding and math, because you can create a lot of
    1:49:51 synthetic data and verify if that data is correct. So because of that nature of that, it’s easier to make
    1:49:56 things like synthetic data to train from. Um, it’s also an area, of course, we’re all interested in
    1:50:01 because as programmers, right, to help us and get faster at it and more productive. So I think the,
    1:50:06 for the next era, like the next five, 10 years, I think what we’re going to find is people who are
    1:50:12 kind of embrace these technologies become almost at one with them. Um, whether that’s in the creative
    1:50:18 industries or the technical industries will become sort of superhumanly productive, I think. So the
    1:50:22 great programmers will be even better, but there’ll be even 10x even what they are today. And because
    1:50:29 there you’ll be able to use their skills to utilize the tools to the maximum, uh, exploit them to the
    1:50:34 maximum. And, um, so I think that’s what we’re going to see in the next domain. Um, so that’s going to
    1:50:39 cause quite a lot of change, right? And so that’s coming. A lot of people benefit from that. So I think
    1:50:45 one example of that is if coding becomes easier, um, it becomes available to many more creatives
    1:50:51 to do more. Uh, and, uh, but I think the top programmers will still have huge advantages as
    1:50:56 terms of specifying, going back to specifying what the architecture should be. The question should be
    1:51:02 how to guide these, um, uh, coding assistants in a way that’s useful, you know, check whether
    1:51:09 the code they produce is good. So I think there’s plenty of, um, uh, headroom there for the foreseeable,
    1:51:10 you know, next few years.
    1:51:14 So I think there’s, there’s several interesting things there. One is there’s, uh, a lot of
    1:51:20 imperative to just get better and better consistently of using these tools. So they are, they’re riding
    1:51:27 the wave of the improvement, improving models versus like competing against them. But sadly,
    1:51:33 but that’s the, the nature of, of life on earth. Um, there could be a huge amount of value to certain
    1:51:40 kinds of programming at the cutting edge and less value to other kinds. For example, it could be like,
    1:51:48 you know, front end web design might, uh, be more amenable to, to, to, as, as you mentioned,
    1:51:55 to generation, uh, by AI systems and maybe, for example, game engine design or something like this,
    1:52:01 or backend design or, or guiding systems in high performance situations, high performance programming
    1:52:08 type of design decisions that might be extremely valuable, but it will shift where the humans are
    1:52:11 needed most. And that’s scary for people to adjust.
    1:52:15 Yeah, I can, I think that’s right. The, the, any time where there’s a lot of disruption and change,
    1:52:19 you know, and we’ve had, this is not just this time. We’ve had this in many times in human history with
    1:52:26 the internet, uh, mobile, but before that was the industrial revolution. Um, and it’s going to be one
    1:52:30 of those eras where there will be a lot of change. I think there’ll be new jobs. We can’t even imagine
    1:52:35 today, just like the internet created. And then those people with the right skillsets to
    1:52:41 ride that wave will become incredibly valuable, right? Those skills, but maybe people will have
    1:52:47 to relearn or adapt a bit, uh, their current skills. And it’s the, the thing that’s going to be harder
    1:52:53 to deal with this time around is that I think what we’re going to see is something like probably 10 times
    1:52:59 the impact the industrial revolution had and, but 10 times faster as well. Right. So instead of a hundred
    1:53:03 years, it takes 10 years. And so that’s going to make it, you know, it’s like a hundred X, uh, the
    1:53:09 impact and the speed combined. So that’s, what’s I think going to make it more difficult for society to,
    1:53:14 to, to deal with. And it’s good. There’s a lot to think through. And I think we need to be discussing
    1:53:20 that right now. And I, I, you know, encourage top economists in the world and philosophers to start
    1:53:26 thinking about, um, uh, how should, is society going to be affected by this and what should we do,
    1:53:32 including things like, um, you know, uh, universal basic provision or something like that, where a lot
    1:53:39 of the, um, increased productivity, uh, gets shared out and distributed, uh, to society. Um, and maybe in
    1:53:45 the form of surface services and other things where if you want more than that, you still go and get
    1:53:51 some incredibly rare skills and things like that, um, and, and make yourself unique. Um, but, uh, but
    1:53:55 there’s a basic provision that is provided. And if you think of government as technology, there’s also
    1:54:01 interesting questions, not just in economics, but just politics. How do you design a system that’s
    1:54:09 responding to the rapidly changing times such that you can represent the different pain that people feel
    1:54:17 from the different groups and how do you reallocate resources in a way that, um, addresses that pain
    1:54:23 and represents the hope and the pain and the fears of different people, uh, in a way that doesn’t lead
    1:54:31 to division because politicians are often really good at sort of fueling the division and using that to
    1:54:38 get elected. The other defining the other and then saying that’s bad. And so based on that,
    1:54:45 I think that’s often counterproductive to leveraging a rapidly changing technology, how to help the world
    1:54:52 flourish. So we almost, I need to improve our political systems as well rapidly. If you think
    1:54:53 of them as a technology.
    1:54:59 Definitely. And I think, I think we’ll need new governance structures, institutions probably to
    1:55:04 help with this transition. So I think political philosophy and political science is going to be key,
    1:55:11 uh, to that. But I think the number one thing, first of all, is to create more abundance of resources,
    1:55:16 right? Then there’s the, so that’s the number one thing, increase productivity, get more resources,
    1:55:22 maybe eventually get out of the zero sum situation. Then the second question is how to use those resources
    1:55:27 and distribute those resources. But yeah, you can’t do that without having that abundance first.
    1:55:34 Uh, you mentioned to me, uh, the book, the maniac, uh, by Benjamin, a little bit to a book on,
    1:55:40 uh, first of all, about you, there’s a bio about you. Um, it’s strange. Yeah, it’s unclear. Yes,
    1:55:47 sure. It’s unclear how much is fiction, how much is reality. Um, but I think the central figure that
    1:55:52 that is, uh, John von Neumann, I would say it’s a haunting and beautiful exploration of madness and
    1:56:00 genius. And let’s say the double-edged, uh, sword of discovery. And, you know, for, um, people who
    1:56:05 don’t know, John von Neumann is a kind of legendary mind. He contributed to quantum mechanics. He was
    1:56:11 on the Manhattan project. He is widely considered to be the father of, or pioneered the modern computer
    1:56:18 and AI and so on. So as many people say, he is like one of the smartest humans ever. So it’s just
    1:56:26 fascinating. And what’s also fascinating as a, as a person who saw nuclear science and physics become
    1:56:33 the atomic bomb. So you, you got to see ideas become a thing that has a huge amount of impact on the world.
    1:56:41 Um, he also foresaw the same thing for computing. Yeah. He’s he, and that’s the, a little bit again,
    1:56:48 beautiful and haunting aspect of the book, uh, then taking a leap forward and looking at this at least
    1:56:58 it all alpha zero alpha go alpha zero big moment that maybe John von Neumann’s thinking was brought to,
    1:57:04 to, to, to, to, to reality. So I, I guess the question is, um, what do you think if you got to
    1:57:09 hang out with John von Neumann now, what would, what would he say about what’s going on?
    1:57:14 Well, that would be an amazing experience. You know, he’s a fantastic mind. And I also love the
    1:57:19 way he spent a lot of his time at Princeton at the Institute of Advanced Studies is a very special place
    1:57:26 for thinking. And, um, it’s amazing how much of a polymath he was in the spread of things he helped
    1:57:30 invent, including of course, the von Neumann architecture that all the modern computers are
    1:57:36 based on. And, um, he had amazing foresight. I think he would have loved where we are today.
    1:57:42 And he would have, um, I think he would have really enjoyed alpha go being a game, he also did game
    1:57:48 theory. I think he foresaw a lot of what would happen with learning machines systems that, that,
    1:57:52 that, uh, kind of grown, I think he called it rather than programmed. I’m not sure how even,
    1:57:57 maybe he wouldn’t even be that surprised. There’s the fruition of what I think he already foresaw
    1:58:03 in the 1950s. I wonder what advice he would give. He got to see the building of the atomic bomb with
    1:58:07 the Manhattan project. I’m sure there’s interesting stuff that maybe is not talked about enough. Maybe
    1:58:13 some bureaucratic aspect, maybe the influence of politicians, maybe, maybe not enough of picking up
    1:58:19 the phone and talking to people that are called enemies by the said politicians. There might be
    1:58:22 some like deep wisdom that we just may have lost from that time actually.
    1:58:27 Yeah, I’m sure. I’m sure there is. I mean, I’ve, you know, studied, I read a lot of books for that
    1:58:33 time as well, Chronicle Time, um, and some brilliant people involved. I agree with you. I think maybe there
    1:58:39 needs to be more dialogue and understanding. Um, I hope we can learn from those, those times. I think
    1:58:44 the difference here is that the AI has so many, it’s a multi-use technology. Obviously we’re trying to do
    1:58:52 things like that, like solve, you know, all diseases, um, uh, help with energy, uh, and scarcity. These
    1:58:57 incredible things. This is why all of us and myself, you know, I worked, started on this journey 30 plus
    1:59:04 years ago. And, um, but of course there are risks too. And probably von Neumann, my guess is he foresaw
    1:59:10 both. And, um, and I think he sort of said, I think it is to his wife that, that, that it would be,
    1:59:16 this is computers would be even more impactful in the world. And as we just discussed, you know,
    1:59:20 I think that’s right. I think it’s going to be 10 times at least of the industrial revolution.
    1:59:26 So I think he’s right. So I think he would have been, I imagine fascinated by, uh, uh, where we are
    1:59:33 now. And I think one of the, maybe you can correct me, but one of the takeaways from the book is that
    1:59:41 reason has, uh, said in the book, mad dreams of reason, it’s not enough for guiding humanity as we
    1:59:46 build these super powerful technology that there’s something else. I mean, there’s also like a religious
    1:59:52 component, whatever God, whatever religion gives, it pulls at something in the human spirit that
    1:59:56 raw, cold reason doesn’t give us.
    2:00:00 And I agree with that. I think we need to approach it with whatever you want to call it, the,
    2:00:05 a spiritual dimension or humanist dimension doesn’t have to be to do with religion, right? But this
    2:00:10 idea of, of a soul, what makes us human, this spark that we have, perhaps it’s to do with consciousness
    2:00:16 when we finally understand that. Um, I think that has to be at the heart of the endeavor. Um, and
    2:00:21 technology, I’ve always seen technology as the enabler, right? The tools that enable us to,
    2:00:27 to flourish and to understand more about the world. And I, I’m sort of with Feynman on this,
    2:00:33 and he used to always talk about science and art being companions, right? You can understand it from
    2:00:38 both sides, the beauty of a flower, how beautiful it is, and also understand why the colors of the
    2:00:42 flower evolved like that, right? That just makes it more beautiful that, that, that just the intrinsic
    2:00:47 beauty of the flower. And, and I’ve always sort of seen it like that. And maybe, you know, in the
    2:00:51 Renaissance times, the great discoverers then like people like Da Vinci, you know, they were,
    2:00:56 I don’t think he saw any difference between science and art, uh, and perhaps religion,
    2:01:01 right? They were, everything was, it’s just part of being human and, um, being inspired about the
    2:01:06 world around us. And that’s what I, the philosophy I tried to take. And, um, one of my favorite
    2:01:11 philosophers is Spinoza. And I think he combined that all very well, you know, this idea of trying
    2:01:16 to understand the universe and understanding our place in it. And that was his kind of way of
    2:01:21 understanding religion. And I think that’s quite beautiful. And for me, every, all of these things
    2:01:28 are related, interrelated, the technology and, um, what it means to be human. And, uh, I think it’s
    2:01:35 very important though, that we remember that as when we’re immersed in the technology and the research,
    2:01:41 I think a lot of researchers that I see in, in our field are a little bit too narrow and only
    2:01:47 understand the technology. And I think also that’s why it’s important for this to be debated by society
    2:01:52 at large. And I’m very supportive of things like this, the AI summits that will happen and governments
    2:01:57 understanding it. And I think that’s one good thing about the chatbot era and the product era of AI is
    2:02:03 that everyday person can actually feel and interact with cutting edge AI and, and, and feel, feel it for
    2:02:07 themselves. Yeah. Because they, they force the technologists to have the human conversation. Yeah,
    2:02:13 that’s the hopeful aspect of it. Like you said, it’s a dual use technology that we’re forcefully
    2:02:19 integrating the entire humanity into it by, into the discussion about AI, because ultimately AI, AGI
    2:02:27 will be used for things that states use technologies for, which is a conflict and so on. And the more
    2:02:35 we, uh, integrate humans into this picture by having chats with them, the more we will guide.
    2:02:39 Yeah. Be able to adapt society will be able to adapt to these technologies like we’ve always done
    2:02:44 in the past with, with, uh, the incredible technologies we’ve invented in the past.
    2:02:53 Do you think there will be something like a Manhattan project where, um, there will be an escalation of
    2:02:58 the power of this technology and states in their old way of thinking, we’ll try to use it as weapons
    2:03:00 technologies. And there will be this kind of escalation.
    2:03:09 I hope not. Um, I think that would be, uh, very dangerous to do. And I think also, um, you know,
    2:03:13 not the right use of the technology. I hope we’ll end up with more, something more collaborative
    2:03:21 if needed, like more like a, like a CERN project, you know, where, um, it’s research focused and the
    2:03:28 best minds in the world come together to carefully complete the final steps and make sure it’s
    2:03:34 responsibly done before, you know, like deploying it to the world. We’ll see. I mean, it’s difficult
    2:03:39 with the current geopolitical climate, I think, uh, to, to see cooperation, but things can change.
    2:03:44 And, um, I think at least on the scientific level, it’s important for the researchers to,
    2:03:50 to, to, to keep in touch and, and, and keep close to each other on, at least on those kinds of topics.
    2:03:55 Yeah. And I personally believe on the education side and, um, immigration side, it would be great if
    2:04:02 both directions, uh, people from the West immigrated China and China back. I mean, there is some like
    2:04:09 family human aspect of people just intermixing. Yeah. And thereby those ties grow strong. So you
    2:04:15 can’t sort of divide against each other at this kind of old school way of thinking. And so, uh, multi,
    2:04:20 uh, multicultural, multidisciplinary research teams working on scientific questions. That’s like the
    2:04:26 hope. Don’t, don’t let the, the warm leaders that are warmongers divide us. I think science is the
    2:04:31 ultimately really beautiful connector. Yeah. Science has always been, uh, I think quite a,
    2:04:36 a very collaborative endeavor and, you know, scientists know that it’s, it’s a, it’s a collective
    2:04:41 endeavor as well, and we can all learn from each other. So perhaps it could be a vector to get a bit
    2:04:45 of cooperation. What’s your, uh, ridiculous question. What’s your P doom probability of the
    2:04:52 human civilization destroys itself. Well, look, I, I don’t have a, it’s a, you know, I don’t have a
    2:04:58 P doom number. The reason I don’t is because I think it’s would imply a level of precision that
    2:05:03 is not there. So like, I don’t know how people are getting their P doom numbers. I think it’s a kind of
    2:05:10 a little bit of a ridiculous notion because, um, what I would say is it’s definitely non-zero
    2:05:17 and it’s probably non-negligible. So that in itself is pretty sobering. And my, my view is it’s just
    2:05:22 hugely uncertain, right? What these technologies are going to be able to do, how fast are they going to
    2:05:26 take off, how controllable they’re going to be. Some things may turn out to be, and hopefully
    2:05:33 like way easier than we thought. Right. Um, but it may be, there’s some really hard, um, uh, problems
    2:05:39 that are harder than we guess today. And I think, uh, we don’t know that for sure. And so in, under those
    2:05:45 conditions of a lot of uncertainty, but huge stakes both ways, you know, on the one hand, we could solve
    2:05:51 all diseases, energy problems, the, not the, the, the, the scarcity problem, and then travel to the stars and
    2:05:55 consciousness of the stars and maximum human flourishing. On the other hand, is this sort of
    2:06:00 P doom scenarios. So given the uncertainty around it and the importance of it, it’s clear to me,
    2:06:06 the only rational, sensible approach is to proceed with cautious optimism. So we want the outcome. We
    2:06:13 want the, um, uh, the benefits of course, uh, and, uh, all of the, the amazing things that AI can bring.
    2:06:19 And actually I would be really worried for humanity. If I, if given the other challenges that we have
    2:06:25 climate disease, you know, aging, uh, resources, all of that, if I didn’t know something like AI was
    2:06:30 coming down the line, right. How would we solve all those other problems? I think it’s hard. Um,
    2:06:35 so I think we’ve, you know, it could be amazingly transformative for good. Um, but on the other hand,
    2:06:41 you know, there are these risks that we know are there, but we can’t quite quantify. So the,
    2:06:47 the best thing to do is to use the scientific method to do more research, to try and, uh, more
    2:06:53 precisely define those risks and of course, address them. Um, and I think that’s what we’re doing. I
    2:06:59 think there probably needs to be, uh, 10 times more effort of that than there is now as we’re getting
    2:07:03 closer and closer to the, to the, to the AGI line. What would be the source of worry for you more?
    2:07:09 Would it be human caused or AI, AGI caused? Yeah.
    2:07:13 Humans abusing that technology versus AGI itself through mechanism that you’ve spoken about,
    2:07:18 which is fascinating deception or this kind of stuff getting better and better and better
    2:07:22 secretly. And then I think they’re, they’re, they operate over different timescales and they’re
    2:07:27 equally important to address. So there’s just the, the, the, the common garden or variety of like,
    2:07:32 you know, bad actors using new technology, uh, in this case, general purpose technology and
    2:07:39 repurposing it for harmful ends. And that’s a huge risk. And I think that has a lot of complications
    2:07:45 because generally, you know, I’m in huge favor of open science and open source. And in fact,
    2:07:49 we did it with all our science projects like alpha fold and all of those things, uh, for the benefit of,
    2:07:56 of, of the scientific community. Um, but how does one restrict bad actors access to these powerful
    2:08:03 systems, whether they’re individuals or even rogue states, uh, and, but enable access at the same time
    2:08:08 to good actors to, to maximally build on top of, it’s pretty tricky problem that there’s, I’ve not
    2:08:13 heard a clear solution to. So there’s the bad actor use case problem. And then there’s obviously,
    2:08:19 uh, as the systems become more agentic and closer to AGI, um, uh, and more autonomous,
    2:08:25 how do we ensure the guardrails and they stick to what we want them to do, uh, and under our control.
    2:08:33 Yeah. I tend to, maybe on my mind is limited, worry more about the humans, the bad actors and there it
    2:08:39 could be, uh, in part, how do you not put destructive technology in the hands of bad actors, but in
    2:08:44 another part from, again, geopolitical technology perspective, how do you reduce the number of bad
    2:08:50 actors in the world? That’s, that’s also interesting human problem. Yeah. It’s a hard problem. I mean,
    2:08:57 look, we, we, we can, um, maybe also use the technology itself to help, um, uh, uh, early
    2:09:04 warning on some of the bad actor use cases, right? Whether that’s bio or nuclear or whatever it is,
    2:09:09 like AI could be potentially helpful there, as long as the AI that you’re using is itself reliable,
    2:09:14 right? So it’s a sort of interlocking problem and that’s what makes it very tricky. And, and again,
    2:09:20 it may require some agreement internationally, at least between China and the U and the U S of,
    2:09:26 of, of, of some, uh, basic standards. Right. Uh, I have to ask you about the, uh, the book,
    2:09:31 the maniac there, there’s this, the, the hand of God moment, at least it all’s move 78,
    2:09:41 that perhaps the last time a human did a move of sort of pure human genius and beat AlphaGo or like
    2:09:46 broke its brain. Yes. If sorry to anthropomorphize, but it’s an interesting moment because I think in
    2:09:50 so many domains, it will keep happening. Yeah. It’s a special moment. And, you know,
    2:09:55 it was great for Lisa doll. And, you know, I think it’s in a way they were sort of inspiring each other.
    2:10:02 We as a team were inspired by Lisa doll’s brilliance and nobleness. And then maybe he got inspired by,
    2:10:08 you know, what AlphaGo was doing to then conjure this incredible inspirational moment. It’s all,
    2:10:13 you know, captured very well in the, in the documentary about it. And, um, I think that’ll
    2:10:17 continue in many domains where there’s this, at least for the, for the, again, for the foreseeable,
    2:10:24 future of like the humans bringing in their ingenuity, um, and asking the right question,
    2:10:31 let’s say, uh, and then utilizing these tools, uh, in a way that, um, then cracks a problem.
    2:10:37 Yeah. What is the AI becomes smarter and smarter? One of the interesting questions we can ask ourselves
    2:10:44 is what makes humans special? It does feel perhaps biased that we humans are deeply special.
    2:10:51 I don’t know if it’s our intelligence. It could be something else that, that other thing that’s
    2:10:58 outside the mad dreams of reason. I think that’s what I’ve always imagined. Uh, when I was a kid and
    2:11:04 starting on this journey of like, um, I was fascinated by things like consciousness, did, did a neuroscience
    2:11:09 PhD to look at how the brain works, especially imagination and memory. I focused on the hippocampus.
    2:11:12 And it’s sort of going to be interesting. I always thought the best way, of course, one can,
    2:11:17 kind of philosophize about it and have thought experiments and maybe even do actual experiments
    2:11:23 like you do in neuroscience on, on real brains. But in the end, I always imagined that building
    2:11:28 AI, a kind of intelligent artifact, and then comparing that to the human mind and seeing what the differences
    2:11:33 were, uh, would be the best way to uncover what’s special about the human mind. If indeed there is
    2:11:38 anything special. And I suspect there probably is, but it’s going to be hard to, you know,
    2:11:42 I think this journey we’re on will help us, uh, understand that and define that. And, you know,
    2:11:48 there may be a difference between carbon based substrates that we are and silicon ones when they
    2:11:53 process information. You know, one of the best definitions I like of, of, of consciousness is it’s
    2:11:58 the way information feels when we process it, right? Um, it could be, I mean, it doesn’t have,
    2:12:02 it’s not very helpful scientific explanation, but I think it’s kind of interesting intuition, intuitive
    2:12:07 one. And, um, and so, you know, on this, this, this journey, this scientific journey we’re on will,
    2:12:10 I think, um, help uncover that mystery.
    2:12:15 Yeah. What I cannot create. I do not understand. That’s a, somebody you deeply admire, Richard Feynman,
    2:12:23 like you mentioned, you also reach, um, for the, the Wigner’s dreams of universality that he saw in
    2:12:29 constrained domains, but also broadly generally in, in mathematics and so on. So, so many aspects on
    2:12:34 which you’re pushing towards not to start trouble at the end, but, uh, Roger Penrose.
    2:12:35 Yes. Okay.
    2:12:41 So, uh, you know, do you, do you think consciousness does this hard problem of
    2:12:49 consciousness, how information feels? Um, do you think consciousness, first of all, is a computation?
    2:12:55 And if it is, if it’s information processing, like you said, everything is, is it something that
    2:12:57 could be modeled by a classical computer? Yeah.
    2:12:59 Or is it a quantum mechanical in nature?
    2:13:04 Well, look, Penrose is an amazing thinker, one of the greatest of the modern era. And he,
    2:13:08 we’ve had a lot of discussions about this. Of course, we cordially disagree, which is,
    2:13:12 you know, I, I feel like, um, I mean, he collaborated with a lot of good neuroscientists
    2:13:18 to see if he could find mechanisms for quantum mechanics behavior in the brain. And they, to my
    2:13:23 knowledge, they haven’t found anything, um, convincing yet. So my betting is there is,
    2:13:29 is that it’s mostly, you know, it is just classical computing that’s going on in the brain, which suggests
    2:13:35 that all the phenomena, uh, are modelable or mimicable by a classical computer. But we’ll see,
    2:13:41 you know, that there may be this final mysterious things of the feeling of consciousness, the qualia,
    2:13:47 these kinds of things that philosophers debate, where it’s unique to the substrate. We may even
    2:13:52 come towards understanding that when, if we do things like neural link and, and, uh, have neural
    2:13:57 interfaces to the AI systems, which I think we probably will eventually, um, maybe to keep up
    2:14:02 with the AI systems, uh, we might actually be able to feel for ourselves what it’s like to compute
    2:14:09 on silicon. Right. So, um, and maybe that will tell us. Uh, so I think it’s, it’s going to be
    2:14:14 interesting. And I had a debate once with the late Daniel Dennett about why do we think each
    2:14:19 other are conscious? Okay. So it’s for two reasons. One is you’re exhibiting the same behavior that I am.
    2:14:24 So that’s one thing behaviorally, you seem like a conscious being if I am. But the second thing,
    2:14:28 which is often overlooked is that we’re running on the same substrate. So if you’re behaving in the same
    2:14:33 way and we’re running on the same substrate, it’s most parsimonious to assume you’re feeling the same
    2:14:39 experience that I’m feeling, but with an AI, uh, that’s on silicon, we won’t be able to rely on the
    2:14:43 second part, even if it exhibits the first part, that behavior looks like a behavior of a conscious
    2:14:50 being. It might even claim it is. Um, but we, but, but we wouldn’t know how it actually felt. Um,
    2:14:55 and it probably couldn’t know we, what we felt at least in the first stages, maybe when we get to
    2:14:59 super intelligence and the technologies that builds, perhaps we’ll, we’ll be able to, um,
    2:15:05 bridge that. No, I mean, that’s a huge test for radical empathy is to empathize with a different
    2:15:11 substrate, right? Exactly. We never had to confront that before. Yeah. So maybe, maybe through brain
    2:15:16 computer interfaces, be able to truly empathize what it feels like to be a computer.
    2:15:20 Well, for information to be computed, not on a carbon system.
    2:15:24 I mean, that’s deeply exciting. I mean, some people kind of think about that with plants,
    2:15:30 with other life forms, which is different, similar substrate, but sufficiently far enough
    2:15:36 on the, uh, evolutionary tree that it’s requires a radical empathy, but to do that with a computer.
    2:15:40 I mean, no, we sort of, there are animal studies on this of like, of course, higher animals,
    2:15:46 like, you know, killer whales and dolphins and dogs and, and monkeys, you know, they have some,
    2:15:50 and elephants, you know, they have some aspects certainly of consciousness, right? Even though
    2:15:54 they’re not, might not be that, that, that smart on an IQ sense. So, so we can already empathize with
    2:15:59 that. And maybe even some of our systems one day, like we built this thing called dolphin Gemma,
    2:16:04 you know, which can, one, a version of our system was trained on dolphin and whale sounds. And maybe
    2:16:08 we’ll be able to build a, an interpreter or translator at some point, which would be pretty cool.
    2:16:11 What gives you hope for the future of human civilization?
    2:16:19 Well, what gives me hope is I think our almost limitless ingenuity. First of all, I think the
    2:16:26 best of us and the best human minds are incredible. Um, and you know, I love, you know, meeting and
    2:16:32 watching any human that’s the top of their game, whether that’s sport or science or art, you know,
    2:16:36 it’s, it’s, it’s just nothing more wonderful than that. Seeing them in their element in flow.
    2:16:42 Um, I think it’s almost limitless, you know, our brains are general systems, intelligent systems.
    2:16:45 So I think it’s almost limitless what we can potentially do with them. And then the other
    2:16:52 thing is our extreme adaptability. I think it’s gonna be okay in terms of, there’s gonna be a lot of
    2:16:58 change, but that, but look where we are now without effectively our hunter gatherer brains. How is it we
    2:17:05 can, you know, we can cope with the modern world, right? Flying on planes, doing podcasts,
    2:17:09 you know, playing computer games and virtual simulations. I mean, it’s already mind blowing,
    2:17:14 given that our mind was, was developed for, you know, hunting buffaloes on the, on the tundra.
    2:17:20 And, and so I think this is just the next step. And, and, and it’s actually kind of interesting to see how
    2:17:25 society is already adapted to this mind blowing AI technology we have today already. It’s sort of like,
    2:17:28 Oh, I talk to chat bots totally fine.
    2:17:33 And it’s very possible that this very podcast activity, which I’m here for will be completely
    2:17:36 replaced by AI. I’m very replaceable and I’m waiting for it.
    2:17:38 Not to the level that you can do it, Lex, I don’t think.
    2:17:41 All right. Thank you. That’s, that’s what we humans do to each other. We compliment.
    2:17:47 All right. And, uh, I’m, uh, deeply grateful for us humans to have this, uh, infinite capacity for
    2:17:52 curiosity, adaptability, like you said, and also compassion and ability to love.
    2:17:54 Exactly. All of those, all the things that are deeply human.
    2:18:00 Well, this is a huge honor, Demis. You’re one of the truly special humans in the world. Uh,
    2:18:03 thank you so much for doing what you do and for talking today.
    2:18:04 Well, thank you very much, Lex.
    2:18:10 Thanks for listening to this conversation with Demis Kasabas. To support this podcast,
    2:18:15 please check out our sponsors in the description and consider subscribing to this channel.
    2:18:21 And now let me answer some questions and try to articulate some things I’ve been thinking about.
    2:18:28 If you’d like to submit questions, including in audio and video form, go to lexfreeman.com/ama.
    2:18:34 I got a lot of amazing questions, thoughts, and requests from folks. I’ll keep trying to pick
    2:18:39 some, uh, randomly and comment on it at the end of every episode.
    2:18:47 I got a note on May 21st this year that said, “Hi Lex, 20 years ago today, David Foster Wallace
    2:18:54 delivered his famous, this is water speech at Kenyan College. What do you think of this speech?”
    2:19:03 Well, first, I think this is probably one of the greatest and most unique commencement speeches
    2:19:08 ever given. But of course I have many favorites, including the one by Steve Jobs.
    2:19:14 And David Foster Wallace is one of my favorite writers and one of my favorite humans.
    2:19:23 There’s a tragic honesty to his work and it always felt as if he was engaging in a constant battle with
    2:19:31 his own mind. And the writing, his writing, were kind of his notes from the front lines of that battle.
    2:19:39 Now onto the speech, let me quote some parts. There’s of course the parable of the fish and the water
    2:19:46 that goes, “There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming
    2:19:55 the other way, who nods at them and says, ‘Morning boys, how’s the water?’ And the two young fish swim on for
    2:20:01 a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, ‘What the hell is water?’
    2:20:09 In the speech, David Foster Wallace goes on to say, “The point of the fish story is merely that the
    2:20:16 most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about.” Stated as an
    2:20:22 English sentence, of course, this is just a banal platitude. But the fact is that in the day-to-day
    2:20:28 trenches of adult existence, banal platitudes can have a life or death importance, or so I wish to
    2:20:35 suggest to you in this dry and lovely morning. I have several takeaways from this parable and the
    2:20:41 speech that follows. First, I think we must question everything, and in particular, the most basic
    2:20:49 assumptions about our reality, our life, and the very nature of existence. And that this project is a
    2:20:56 deeply personal one. In some fundamental sense, nobody can really help you in this process of discovery.
    2:21:05 The call to action here, I think, from David Foster Wallace, as he puts it, is to “to be just a little
    2:21:13 less arrogant, to have just a little more critical awareness about myself and my certainties.” Because a
    2:21:19 huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally
    2:21:28 wrong, and deluded. All right, back to me, Lex speaking. The second takeaway is that the central
    2:21:36 spiritual battles of our life are not fought on a mountaintop somewhere at a meditation retreat,
    2:21:45 but it is fought in the mundane moments of daily life. Third takeaway is that we too easily give
    2:21:53 away our time and attention to the multitude of distractions that the world feeds us, the insatiable
    2:22:02 black holes of attention. David Foster Wallace’s call to action in this case is to be deeply aware of the
    2:22:10 the beauty in each moment and to find meaning in the mundane. I often quote David Foster Wallace in his
    2:22:18 advice that the key to life is to be unboreable. And I think this is exactly right. Every moment,
    2:22:26 every object, every experience, when looked at closely enough, contains within it infinite richness to
    2:22:34 explore. And since Demis Khasabas of this very podcast episode and I are such fans of Richard Feynman,
    2:22:42 allow me to also quote Mr. Feynman on this topic as well. Quote, “I have a friend who’s an artist
    2:22:49 and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say,
    2:22:58 look how beautiful it is. And I’ll agree.” Then he says, “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is,
    2:23:06 but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.” And I think that’s kind of nutty.
    2:23:15 First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I
    2:23:22 may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same
    2:23:29 time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I can imagine the cells in there, the complicated
    2:23:36 actions inside which also have beauty. I mean, it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter.
    2:23:42 There’s also beauty at the smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that
    2:23:49 the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting. It means that
    2:23:56 the insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in lower forms?
    2:24:02 Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds
    2:24:08 to the excitement, the mystery, and the awe of a flower. It only adds.
    2:24:18 All right, back to David Foster Wallace’s speech. He has a great story in there that I particularly enjoy.
    2:24:25 It goes, “There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness.
    2:24:31 One of the guys is religious. The other is an atheist. And the two are arguing about
    2:24:36 the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the
    2:24:42 atheist says, “Look, it’s not like I don’t have actual reasons for not believing in God. It’s not
    2:24:50 like I haven’t ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month, I got caught away
    2:24:57 from the camp in that terrible blizzard. And I was totally lost. And I couldn’t see a thing. And it was
    2:25:04 50 below. And so I tried it. I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out, “Oh God, if there is a God,
    2:25:10 I’m lost in this blizzard. And I’m going to die if you don’t help me.” And now back in the bar, the religious
    2:25:17 guy looks at the atheist all puzzled. “Well, then you must believe now,” he says. “After all,
    2:25:24 there you are, alive.” The atheist just rolls his eyes. “No, man. All that happened was a couple of
    2:25:29 Eskimos happened to be wandering by and show me the way back to the camp.”
    2:25:37 All this, I think, teaches us that everything is a matter of perspective. And that wisdom may arrive
    2:25:43 if we have the humility to keep shifting and expanding our perspective on the world.
    2:25:49 Thank you for allowing me to talk a bit about David Foster Wallace. He’s one of my favorite
    2:25:56 writers and he’s a beautiful soul. If I may, one more thing I wanted to briefly comment on.
    2:26:04 I find myself to be in this strange position of getting attacked online often from all sides,
    2:26:10 including being lied about sometimes through selective misrepresentation, but often through
    2:26:17 downright lies. I don’t know how else to put it. This all breaks my heart, frankly. But I’ve come to
    2:26:23 understand that it’s the way of the internet and the cost of the path I’ve chosen. There’s been days when it’s
    2:26:31 been rough on me mentally. It’s not fun being lied about, especially when it’s about things that are
    2:26:38 usually, for a long time, have been a source of happiness and joy for me. But again, that’s life.
    2:26:45 I’ll continue exploring the world of people and ideas with empathy and rigor, wearing my heart on my sleeve,
    2:26:54 as much as I can. For me, that’s the only way to live. Anyway, a common attack on me is about my time
    2:27:02 at MIT and Drexel, two great universities I love and have tremendous respect for. Since a bunch of lies
    2:27:09 have accumulated online about me on these topics, to a sad and at times hilarious degree, I thought I
    2:27:14 would once more state the obvious facts about my bio for the small number of you who may care.
    2:27:23 TLGR, two things. First, as I say often, including in a recent podcast episode that somehow was listened
    2:27:30 to by many millions of people, I proudly went to Drexel University for my bachelor’s, master’s, and
    2:27:39 doctorate degrees. Second, I am a research scientist at MIT and have been there in a paid research position
    2:27:46 for the last 10 years. Allow me to elaborate a bit more on these two things now, but please skip
    2:27:53 if this is not at all interesting. So like I said, a common attack on me is that I have no real affiliation
    2:28:02 with MIT. The accusation, I guess, is that I’m falsely claiming an MIT affiliation because I taught a lecture
    2:28:12 there once. Nope, that accusation against me is a complete lie. I have been at MIT for over 10 years
    2:28:23 in a paid research position from 2015 to today. To be extra clear, I’m a research scientist at MIT working
    2:28:31 in LIDS, the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems in the College of Computing. For now, since
    2:28:41 I’m still at MIT, you can see me in the directory and on the various lab pages. I have indeed given many
    2:28:48 lectures at MIT over the years, a small fraction of which I posted online. Teaching for me always has
    2:28:55 been just for fun and not part of my research work. I personally think I suck at it, but I have always
    2:29:02 learned and grown from the experience. It’s like Feynman spoke about, if you want to understand something
    2:29:10 deeply, it’s good to try to teach it. But like I said, my main focus has always been on research. I published
    2:29:18 many peer-reviewed papers that you can see in my Google Scholar profile. For my first four years at MIT,
    2:29:26 I worked extremely intensively. Most weeks were 80 to 100 hour work weeks. After that, in 2019,
    2:29:32 I still kept my research scientist position, but I split my time taking a leap to pursue projects in AI
    2:29:39 and robotics outside MIT, and to dedicate a lot of focus to the podcast. As I’ve said, I’ve been continuously
    2:29:45 surprised just how many hours preparing for an episode takes. There are many episodes of the podcast for
    2:29:52 which I have to read, write, and think for 100, 200 or more hours across multiple weeks and months.
    2:30:01 Since 2020, I have not actively published research papers. Just like the podcast, I think it’s something
    2:30:08 that’s a serious full-time effort. But not publishing and doing full-time research has been eating at me.
    2:30:15 Because I love research. And I love programming and building systems that test out interesting technical
    2:30:23 ideas. Especially in the context of human AI or human robot interaction. I hope to change this in the coming
    2:30:31 months and years. What I’ve come to realize about myself is, if I don’t publish or if I don’t launch
    2:30:37 systems that people use, I definitely feel like a piece of me is missing. It legitimately is a source
    2:30:46 of happiness for me. Anyway, I’m proud of my time at MIT. I was and am constantly surrounded by people much
    2:30:54 smarter than me, many of whom have become lifelong colleagues and friends. MIT is a place I go to
    2:30:59 escape the world, to focus on exploring fascinating questions at the cutting edge of science and
    2:31:08 engineering. This, again, makes me truly happy. And it does hit pretty hard on a psychological level when
    2:31:16 I’m getting attacked over this. Perhaps I’m doing something wrong. If I am, I will try to do better.
    2:31:24 In all this discussion of academic work, I hope you know that I don’t ever mean to say that I’m an
    2:31:32 expert at anything. In the podcast and in my private life, I don’t claim to be smart. In fact, I often call
    2:31:39 myself an idiot and mean it. I try to make fun of myself as much as possible and, in general, to
    2:31:49 celebrate others instead. Now, to talk about Drexel University, which I also love, am proud of, and am
    2:31:55 deeply grateful for my time there. As I said, I went to Drexel for my bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate
    2:32:01 degrees in computer science and electrical engineering. I’ve talked about Drexel many
    2:32:08 times, including, as I mentioned, at the end of a recent podcast, the Donald Trump episode, funny
    2:32:14 enough, that was listened to by many millions of people, where I answered a question about graduate
    2:32:21 school and explained my own journey at Drexel and how grateful I am for it. If it’s at all interesting to
    2:32:28 you, please go listen to the end of that episode or watch the related clip. At Drexel, I met and worked
    2:32:34 with many brilliant researchers and mentors from whom I’ve learned a lot about engineering, science,
    2:32:40 and life. There are many valuable things I gained from my time at Drexel. First, I took a large number
    2:32:46 of very difficult math and theoretical computer science courses. They taught me how to think deeply and
    2:32:52 rigorously, and also how to work hard and not give up, even if it feels like I’m too dumb to find a
    2:33:00 solution to a technical problem. Second, I programmed a lot during that time, mostly C, C++. I programmed
    2:33:06 robots, optimization algorithms, computer vision systems, wireless network protocols, multimodal
    2:33:15 machine learning systems, and all kinds of simulations of physical systems. This is where I really develop a love
    2:33:21 for programming, including, yes, Emacs, and the Kinesis keyboard.
    2:33:29 I also during that time, read a lot. I played a lot of guitar, wrote a lot of crappy poetry,
    2:33:39 and trained a lot in judo and jiu-jitsu, which I cannot sing enough praises to. Jiu-jitsu humbled me
    2:33:45 on a daily basis throughout my 20s, and it still does, to this very day, whenever I get a chance to train.
    2:33:52 Anyway, I hope that the folks who occasionally get swept up in the chanting online crowds that want to tear
    2:34:00 down others don’t lose themselves in it too much. In the end, I still think there’s more good than bad
    2:34:11 in people. But we’re all, each of us, a mixed bag. I know I am very much flawed. I speak awkwardly. I
    2:34:17 sometimes say stupid shit. I can get irrationally emotional. I can be too much of a dick when I
    2:34:23 should be kind. I can lose myself in a biased rabbit hole before I wake up to the bigger,
    2:34:33 more accurate picture of reality. I’m human. And so are you. For better or for worse. And I do still
    2:34:39 believe we’re in this whole beautiful mess together. I love you all.
    2:34:55 *music*

    Demis Hassabis is the CEO of Google DeepMind and Nobel Prize winner for his groundbreaking work in protein structure prediction using AI.
    Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep475-sc
    See below for timestamps, transcript, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc.

    Transcript:
    https://lexfridman.com/demis-hassabis-2-transcript

    CONTACT LEX:
    Feedback – give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey
    AMA – submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama
    Hiring – join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring
    Other – other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact

    EPISODE LINKS:
    Demis’s X: https://x.com/demishassabis
    DeepMind’s X: https://x.com/GoogleDeepMind
    DeepMind’s Instagram: https://instagram.com/GoogleDeepMind
    DeepMind’s Website: https://deepmind.google/
    Gemini’s Website: https://gemini.google.com/
    Isomorphic Labs: https://isomorphiclabs.com/
    The MANIAC (book): https://amzn.to/4lOXJ81
    Life Ascending (book): https://amzn.to/3AhUP7z

    SPONSORS:
    To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts:
    Hampton: Community for high-growth founders and CEOs.
    Go to https://joinhampton.com/lex
    Fin: AI agent for customer service.
    Go to https://fin.ai/lex
    Shopify: Sell stuff online.
    Go to https://shopify.com/lex
    LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix.
    Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex
    AG1: All-in-one daily nutrition drink.
    Go to https://drinkag1.com/lex

    OUTLINE:
    (00:00) – Introduction
    (00:29) – Sponsors, Comments, and Reflections
    (08:40) – Learnable patterns in nature
    (12:22) – Computation and P vs NP
    (21:00) – Veo 3 and understanding reality
    (25:24) – Video games
    (37:26) – AlphaEvolve
    (43:27) – AI research
    (47:51) – Simulating a biological organism
    (52:34) – Origin of life
    (58:49) – Path to AGI
    (1:09:35) – Scaling laws
    (1:12:51) – Compute
    (1:15:38) – Future of energy
    (1:19:34) – Human nature
    (1:24:28) – Google and the race to AGI
    (1:42:27) – Competition and AI talent
    (1:49:01) – Future of programming
    (1:55:27) – John von Neumann
    (2:04:41) – p(doom)
    (2:09:24) – Humanity
    (2:12:30) – Consciousness and quantum computation
    (2:18:40) – David Foster Wallace
    (2:25:54) – Education and research

    PODCAST LINKS:
    – Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
    – Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
    – Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
    – RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
    – Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
    – Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips

  • NVIDIA’s Mike Pritchard Shares How Applying AI to Climate Simulation is Helping Forecast the Future – Ep. 266

    Mike Pritchard, Director of Climate Simulation Research at NVIDIA, discusses how artificial intelligence is enhancing the way we model and predict climate patterns. From developing high-resolution, interactive simulations to accelerating climate forecasts, AI is enabling scientists, policymakers, and businesses to gain a deeper understanding of extreme weather and long-term climate change. Learn more at ai-podcast.nvidia.com.

  • Critical Minerals: Mining for the Industrial Future

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 Critical minerals fundamentally underpin everything that we do every day.
    0:00:09 It’s in your phone, in your AirPods, your screens, your laptops, everything that we use.
    0:00:12 How they’re refined and how they’re mined, that all happens in the background.
    0:00:19 There’s not that many massive markets left that have been sort of like largely untapped by technology
    0:00:23 and mining sort of screams one of the largest markets in the world.
    0:00:26 This is the intersection of geopolitical urgency and tech.
    0:00:29 Now we have technology that can actually go and disrupt this.
    0:00:33 But also as a talent-based, hard tech company is working in sort of dirty spaces,
    0:00:35 willing to go out in the field.
    0:00:36 So now’s the time to build this company.
    0:00:38 It’s a huge problem.
    0:00:40 We have to figure out how to address it.
    0:00:43 And that means investing in mining in the U.S. again.
    0:00:48 It can take more than 15 years to permit and build a new mine in the United States.
    0:00:52 And yet nearly every modern technology we rely on,
    0:00:54 from smartphones to fighter jets to AI data centers,
    0:00:57 depends on a steady supply of critical materials.
    0:01:02 Today, we’re joined by Turner Caldwell, founder of Mariana Minerals,
    0:01:07 along with American Dynamism general partner Aaron Pricerite and partner Ryan McIntosh.
    0:01:09 Turner spent nearly a decade at Tesla,
    0:01:13 working his way upstream from factory design to battery materials and mining.
    0:01:19 Now, he’s building a new kind of mining and refining company, vertically integrated in software first,
    0:01:22 designed to meet the demand our industrial future requires.
    0:01:25 We get into why this industry is so broken,
    0:01:28 what it actually takes to turn rocks into usable materials,
    0:01:31 and how the U.S. can rebuild its capacity to mine,
    0:01:34 refine, and manufacture the things that matter most.
    0:01:41 As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only,
    0:01:44 should not be taken as legal business, tax, or investment advice,
    0:01:47 or be used to evaluate any investment or security,
    0:01:51 and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund.
    0:01:56 Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast.
    0:02:00 For more details, including a link to our investments,
    0:02:04 please see A16Z.com forward slash disclosures.
    0:02:12 So, Turner, you’re coming out of stealth with $85 million raised.
    0:02:15 Why don’t we get into what are critical minerals and why do they matter?
    0:02:20 Critical minerals fundamentally underpin everything that we do every day.
    0:02:22 And that’s why we’re personally really excited about it.
    0:02:28 But it’s not just aerospace, energy, renewable energy, battery, energy storage systems,
    0:02:33 the massive growth in AI that’s happened in the last 12, 18, 24 months,
    0:02:34 and defense, obviously.
    0:02:36 But it’s also everything that we use every day, right?
    0:02:39 Like, it’s in your phone, in your AirPods, your screens, your laptops.
    0:02:43 And so it really crosses everything that we use.
    0:02:46 But where they’re produced and how they’re refined and how they’re mined,
    0:02:48 that all happens in the background.
    0:02:51 And so it’s something that really does need to be brought to the foreground,
    0:02:53 something that we need to support more and more of.
    0:02:57 And it’s a long chain to go from digging something up
    0:03:00 to go all the way through to something that can actually be deployed in an end product.
    0:03:02 And so excited to talk about that.
    0:03:06 Well, why don’t we get into how do we turn rocks into batteries or magnets,
    0:03:07 and why is that so important?
    0:03:09 Yeah, so it starts with mining, obviously.
    0:03:11 Well, it actually starts with exploration.
    0:03:11 But that’s a-
    0:03:12 Yeah, you’ve got to find the rocks in the first place.
    0:03:12 That’s right.
    0:03:14 You’ve got to find the rocks in the first place, which is hard to do.
    0:03:17 And there’s a lot of awesome companies that are working on trying to condense that timeline.
    0:03:22 But once you do find them, you have to get that asset or that resource permitted to extract.
    0:03:23 You develop a mining plan.
    0:03:24 You have to mine it.
    0:03:28 And when those rocks come to the surface, you have to separate ore from waste,
    0:03:30 which is something that is not as trivial as people might expect.
    0:03:32 And then you go through a concentration step.
    0:03:34 So the ores will come to the surface.
    0:03:37 They’ll be less than 1%, definitely less than 5% concentration,
    0:03:39 unless you have this world-class deposit.
    0:03:41 And you’ll typically go through a concentrating step.
    0:03:44 So that can be mechanical, it can be thermal, it can be chemical.
    0:03:46 And that gives you an intermediate product.
    0:03:48 And those intermediate products kind of move all over the world
    0:03:50 and typically go to refining assets.
    0:03:55 The refining operation effectively goes from anything that is like a 10% concentrate
    0:04:00 to a 50% intermediate product and turns into a high-purity metal.
    0:04:03 And then you go into a specialty chemical.
    0:04:06 And so that’s this intermediate product where you go through another chemical process
    0:04:09 to either make a metal sulfate or a metal hydroxide salt.
    0:04:13 And then you will convert that into an engineered material, which is the next step.
    0:04:17 And that in electrochemical systems and batteries, you’ll have cathode materials,
    0:04:21 you’ll have anode materials, and there the morphology and the electrochemical performance
    0:04:22 in the system is really important.
    0:04:24 And then you’re ready to deploy into a battery cell.
    0:04:27 And then you’ll go into a module, and then you’ll go into a pack,
    0:04:29 and then you’ll go into a car or go into a stationary storage product.
    0:04:34 And on the magnet side of things, similarly, you’ll get to a refined rare earth product.
    0:04:36 And it’s a long list of rare earths.
    0:04:39 They often get bundled into one group, but it’s important to break them out.
    0:04:42 And then the common way of making magnets, there’s a few flow sheets,
    0:04:45 but you’ll slurry it, you’ll get the right blend of the different rare earths
    0:04:46 that you’re trying to put in.
    0:04:49 You’ll cast that, you’ll center it, and then you’ll go through a fairly intricate
    0:04:53 and high-precision machining process to get the geometry that you want
    0:04:55 with the tolerances that you need before you can deploy that into magnets
    0:04:56 and eventually into motors.
    0:05:02 How specific is it for a given site, given concentration and other sort of waste products?
    0:05:04 How dynamic is it?
    0:05:07 Is one rare earthmine going to be a similar process to another,
    0:05:10 or is there going to be a very sort of bespoke setup?
    0:05:11 It’s very bespoke.
    0:05:14 And it’s actually part of the problem and what makes the minerals industry so complicated
    0:05:18 is that the flow sheet, which is ultimately how you go from the ore all the way through
    0:05:22 to the refined metal, is designed for that specific asset.
    0:05:25 You will have concentrations of impurities that you have to manage.
    0:05:28 The concentration, obviously, of the target metal is different.
    0:05:32 And there’s like a library of metallurgical unit operations
    0:05:36 that are kind of all stitched together to build a refining operation or a processing operation.
    0:05:40 But how those are stitched together, that’s bespoke for the individual unit operation
    0:05:43 and tied to the kind of chemical metallurgist process engineer
    0:05:45 that designed the circuit in the first place.
    0:05:49 So there’s a lot of like human impact on what that flow sheet ultimately looks like.
    0:05:50 But yes.
    0:05:54 And I imagine very hard to change as the nature of the ore changes as you mine a site.
    0:05:55 That’s right.
    0:05:59 And so part of what we’re working on and what we’ll talk about a little bit later, I’m sure,
    0:06:02 is how do you design circuits that have a little bit more flexibility
    0:06:06 to be able to process ore as it changes over time as you mine through the ore body?
    0:06:10 Because one mine does not actually have consistent ore coming out of it.
    0:06:11 The earth is heterogeneous.
    0:06:12 The ore grades are changing.
    0:06:13 The impurity concentrations are changing.
    0:06:17 There are different ore zones that have different properties in how they are floated
    0:06:19 or how they’re concentrated, how they perform in a leaching circuit.
    0:06:23 And all of those things are custom built for a specific asset.
    0:06:24 One more question on this.
    0:06:28 What are the types of job titles, like backgrounds of people working in this space?
    0:06:32 I imagine for the supply chain you just described, it’s very different types of people,
    0:06:35 very different backgrounds, but they all have to ultimately work together.
    0:06:36 But can you talk a little bit about that?
    0:06:40 Yeah, that’s one of the big hard parts is you have geologists, you have geophysicists,
    0:06:45 you’ll have mining engineers, you’ll have geotechnical engineers, you’ll have process engineers,
    0:06:49 chemical engineers, chemists, metallurgists, mechanical engineers, structural engineers, civil engineers.
    0:06:51 It’s the whole gambit.
    0:06:55 Plus the long tail of workers on site who are moving things from point A to point A.
    0:06:59 That’s right, which also have a super diverse skill set because you need everything from the mining engineers
    0:07:04 and the chemical engineers and the geologists that sit around to operate the asset in addition to the folks
    0:07:07 that have to kind of manage the back office, which is something that often gets overlooked
    0:07:10 when we’re thinking about successfully building and operating a complex circuit.
    0:07:12 Did you always love rocks?
    0:07:15 Did you always know that you were going to start a mining company?
    0:07:16 Yeah, so kind of a funny story.
    0:07:22 The day that I graduated from college, the like urge that I had was to just move to Australia
    0:07:23 and try to find a job in a mine.
    0:07:29 I did not act on that urge and instead started at Tesla roughly 10 years ago now.
    0:07:32 And I started out working on factory design, factory construction,
    0:07:37 and actually slowly over that nine plus year period worked my way upstream in the value chain.
    0:07:41 So I worked on factory design and construction, then started working on battery cell manufacturing,
    0:07:43 spent a lot of time in Japan with Panasonic,
    0:07:45 who’s our primary battery cell manufacturing partner,
    0:07:50 working on incremental improvements to their legacy battery cell manufacturing systems.
    0:07:54 The like pull has always been big things for me, like large scale infrastructure
    0:07:57 that has a large impact on the world.
    0:08:00 I mean, if you want to have a big impact on the world, you have to build things at scale.
    0:08:01 That is, that’s how you get to impact.
    0:08:03 But yeah, so I was working on battery cell manufacturing
    0:08:07 because I was spending a lot of time in Asia, started to explore the supply chain,
    0:08:11 was building some of the early techno-economic models of how cathode materials are made,
    0:08:14 how anod materials are made, and the balance of the components that go into a battery cell.
    0:08:16 And ultimately, this was just following cost.
    0:08:19 It was when I was working on factory design and construction,
    0:08:22 the most expensive thing was actually the equipment that goes inside the factory.
    0:08:24 Then when we started working on cell manufacturing,
    0:08:28 kind of realized that the expensive part of making cells is the stuff that goes inside the cells.
    0:08:29 And then as you start getting further and further upstream,
    0:08:35 you realize that the primary driver of cost is the metals that are going into the engineered materials
    0:08:37 that then go into the cells and then eventually go into the battery.
    0:08:43 And so, started kind of digging much deeper into why metals are so expensive.
    0:08:49 And what you kind of run into is that there’s this interesting incentive misalignment that exists
    0:08:52 between the customer and the producer of metals.
    0:08:57 Like in the mining industry, more demand, this is totally different than manufacturing,
    0:09:00 more demand if you have a higher volume, the expectation is that the price goes up.
    0:09:05 And because it’s a constrained supply, and so the pricing dynamics are totally different
    0:09:08 than manufacturing companies where higher volume means lower cost.
    0:09:11 And as you are scaling up and capturing economies of scale,
    0:09:14 you’re starting to drive down the cost that you can then transfer to your customers.
    0:09:17 And like that expectation doesn’t really exist in the mining industry.
    0:09:18 If you want more of it, it’s going to cost more.
    0:09:19 There’s no economies of scale.
    0:09:21 There are economies of scale on the operations side of things.
    0:09:22 Got it.
    0:09:24 There are not economies of scale as the customer.
    0:09:24 Got it.
    0:09:29 Which is kind of an interesting dynamic and is completely contrary to how manufacturers
    0:09:33 are used to pricing their cost of goods, like their input materials.
    0:09:36 Where if you are buying more and you are scaling up,
    0:09:38 you expect your suppliers to also capture economies of scale
    0:09:39 that then translate into lower pricing,
    0:09:42 which then enables you to price lower for when you sell the customers.
    0:09:45 And so that incentive misalignment was a big one that jumped out
    0:09:47 and that only really kind of starts to come to the surface
    0:09:50 when you start to actually engage with the mining companies.
    0:09:53 But what fascinated me about the mining industry
    0:09:57 is that you are effectively solving problems at micron scale to start.
    0:10:00 You have to figure out how you extract.
    0:10:03 You have an ore that has 1% of a target metal.
    0:10:06 And you are trying to figure out how do you extract that 1%
    0:10:07 and get it to a 100% purity.
    0:10:09 And that fundamentally starts at the atoms.
    0:10:13 And then you have to take a process that you develop
    0:10:15 that starts at micron scale
    0:10:17 and then deploy kilometer scale infrastructure.
    0:10:20 And going back to the thing that was exciting, which is scale,
    0:10:23 is that opportunity to work across those scales, which is exciting.
    0:10:25 Something I always found interesting about Tesla,
    0:10:27 especially early days working with Panasonic,
    0:10:30 that a lot of the know-how, the process knowledge came from Asia.
    0:10:32 Spending a lot of time in Asia, just be curious,
    0:10:34 culturally and just looking at scale
    0:10:37 as they sort of built out a lot of the early battery ecosystem
    0:10:40 and then farther upstream, what did you see there?
    0:10:41 Is it just more chemical engineers?
    0:10:44 Is it more support for that industry?
    0:10:46 Yeah, I think in the battery cell world,
    0:10:50 the precision at which you need to manufacture the product,
    0:10:53 like the tolerances on the final battery cell,
    0:10:55 require a level of rigor and attention to detail
    0:10:57 that does have a cultural aspect to it.
    0:10:58 Like semiconductors.
    0:10:58 Yeah, exactly.
    0:11:00 And so that was a big one.
    0:11:02 But also, it’s a long-term investment.
    0:11:04 In Japanese, it’s Kaizen, right?
    0:11:06 Where you’re like gradually improving over time.
    0:11:08 And in those like super high precision,
    0:11:11 super high throughput industries,
    0:11:14 taking big swings where you make like a radical change
    0:11:15 to one unit operation,
    0:11:18 that didn’t really happen in like those companies.
    0:11:21 It was much more of an iterative improvement to the systems
    0:11:24 that fundamentally eventually enabled you to get costs down.
    0:11:25 But yeah, the labor pool is a big piece.
    0:11:27 And I think some of it is definitely cultural.
    0:11:32 Your time at Tesla, like Tesla famously vertically integrated very early.
    0:11:34 You’re building a vertically integrated mining company,
    0:11:36 which we’ll get into more details about later.
    0:11:39 But like what did working at Tesla teach you about vertical integration
    0:11:40 and why it matters?
    0:11:44 Yeah, I think as we started to scope more and more vertical integration,
    0:11:47 even like outside of like going further upstream in the supply chain,
    0:11:50 the thing that’s really interesting about vertical integration is you fundamentally
    0:11:55 are thinking about the incentive structure that exists between kind of yourself and a partner.
    0:12:00 And so Tesla had to vertically integrate early because people just weren’t making the parts that were needed.
    0:12:02 It was a do or die.
    0:12:03 There was no incentive.
    0:12:06 There was no market for people to build the kind of like subcomponents that were required.
    0:12:10 And so ultimately Tesla had to vertically integrate from day one.
    0:12:13 And then the things that pushed increasing amounts of vertical integration
    0:12:15 ultimately was the incentive structure misalignment
    0:12:19 where suppliers and partners weren’t incentivized to invest in scale
    0:12:21 at the rate that we wanted them to invest in scale.
    0:12:25 They weren’t incentivized to innovate at the pace that we wanted them to innovate.
    0:12:27 And so you end up kind of insourcing a lot of that development
    0:12:30 that enables you to get to the product specs or the component specs that you want.
    0:12:32 And then it takes a lot of guts.
    0:12:35 Because at the end of the day, when you vertically integrate,
    0:12:41 you are transferring the risk profile of your partner kind of into your new expanded risk profile.
    0:12:45 And so you need to be really confident or at least believe that you are a better position
    0:12:47 to kind of take on and manage that risk profile.
    0:12:50 When you were at Tesla and looking at and developing relationships
    0:12:51 with all these global mining companies,
    0:12:54 as Tesla was scaling and looking for suppliers,
    0:12:58 like what were some of the key issues that you noticed from a market perspective?
    0:13:03 And then ultimately what sort of led to Tesla pursuing sort of like further vertical integration?
    0:13:05 Yeah, I think the incentive misalignment piece,
    0:13:09 between the industries and between kind of like a commodity industry or the mining industry
    0:13:11 and the manufacturing industry,
    0:13:14 was the big misalignment that existed between the industries.
    0:13:20 The degree to which automation was absent was pretty interesting.
    0:13:24 There’s a long period of time where mines make no money, right?
    0:13:28 And so a lot of capital goes into the exploration phase,
    0:13:29 it goes into the development phase.
    0:13:32 What a lot of people don’t realize is that when you start the mine,
    0:13:36 there’s actually sometimes like years where you are just getting through the waste
    0:13:38 or drilling a shaft to get to the ore deposit.
    0:13:43 And so any additional capital intensity like associated with automation,
    0:13:45 oftentimes the capital starts to get tired.
    0:13:50 And that additional automation equipment kind of falls by the wayside.
    0:13:53 And if you have the people there that can drive the trucks or drive the excavators
    0:13:55 or run the drill rigs, like you’ll take that.
    0:13:57 And we’re at this interesting inflection point now
    0:13:59 where those people are less and less available.
    0:14:02 The mining industry has kind of been taking it on the head for a long time.
    0:14:05 It’s not been a sexy industry that everyone wants to go into.
    0:14:07 And so the labor pool is contracting, it’s shrinking,
    0:14:10 and it’s both the trades and it’s the engineering skill sets.
    0:14:14 And the first things that mining companies say now
    0:14:16 is that the labor pool is one of the biggest challenges
    0:14:17 that they’re trying to solve for.
    0:14:18 So that was apparent.
    0:14:22 And on top of that, these mines are not exactly in downtown Manhattan.
    0:14:23 They are in remote locations.
    0:14:25 Where have you gone? Have you been on site before?
    0:14:28 Yeah, of course. Indonesia, Australia, China.
    0:14:29 What is it actually like?
    0:14:32 People see pictures. What is actually going on?
    0:14:35 It’s a lot calmer than you might expect.
    0:14:37 You’re usually working a couple of faces
    0:14:40 and you have excavators or front-end loaders
    0:14:41 that are picking up dirt.
    0:14:42 They’re taking them to the unit operation.
    0:14:45 And it’s not as rambunctious and crazy
    0:14:46 as you might expect a mine to be.
    0:14:49 And that’s in Australia and in Canada.
    0:14:52 It’s not this buzzing atmosphere.
    0:14:55 In developing countries, it’s a little different.
    0:14:56 There’s definitely a different degree of automation.
    0:14:59 Obviously, we’ve come a long way from people with picks and shovels.
    0:15:01 And so when I say automation is absent,
    0:15:03 it doesn’t mean there aren’t heavy haul machinery
    0:15:04 that is driving around the sites.
    0:15:06 But there’s a lot more people activity
    0:15:10 when you go to operations that are in Indonesia or in Africa.
    0:15:12 But yeah, been to most continents.
    0:15:15 Why did you leave Tesla to build Mariana?
    0:15:20 I spent a long time kind of like building businesses within Tesla.
    0:15:22 It was early on the cell manufacturing side,
    0:15:24 was early on the cathode manufacturing side,
    0:15:25 was early on the refining side of things.
    0:15:31 And what really excited me was always pushing further and further upstream.
    0:15:34 And I do think that we are at this critical inflection point
    0:15:38 where not only is the labor pool going in the opposite direction of demand
    0:15:39 in the mining industry,
    0:15:44 but AI and ML are getting to the point where it hasn’t been that long, right?
    0:15:47 Like the AlphaGo moment was kind of in 2015, 2016.
    0:15:50 And people were using reinforcement learning to kind of like,
    0:15:54 there’s a paper from 2008 on reinforcement learning for like helicopter control.
    0:15:58 But we’re at this point where the compute and machine learning,
    0:16:02 reinforcement learning do really enable you to go know humans in the loop
    0:16:04 and how a lot of these plants are controlled.
    0:16:06 And as you like build more of that large scale infrastructure
    0:16:09 and see the problems that humans have to solve on a daily basis,
    0:16:11 it becomes like pretty obvious that these are problems
    0:16:14 that humans aren’t best positioned to solve.
    0:16:16 Like these are large multivariable optimization problems
    0:16:19 that RL is like perfectly poised to solve.
    0:16:21 And then on the construction side,
    0:16:23 that is like an entirely different story.
    0:16:26 I think construction, there’s a lot of workflow automation opportunities
    0:16:28 and there’s also tons of menial tasks
    0:16:31 where people are fat fingering data between databases.
    0:16:34 The data systems are completely disaggregated
    0:16:38 and LLMs are presenting this opportunity where we can start to,
    0:16:40 and again, this is like a two-year thing really,
    0:16:41 and it’s just going to get better.
    0:16:44 And so the opportunity to build kind of like from scratch,
    0:16:49 no legacy systems, and have some control over the destiny of the company
    0:16:51 that we’re building, that’s just an exciting opportunity.
    0:16:54 What is the status quo in the industry today?
    0:16:56 What does like the BHP and the RIOs of the world do?
    0:16:58 For like some of the stuff you’re talking about,
    0:17:00 like from a software perspective, like internally.
    0:17:02 They have digital innovation arms.
    0:17:04 They do have digital innovation arms.
    0:17:08 I think that the Freeports and the Rio Tintos and the BHPs,
    0:17:09 they outsource a lot of that.
    0:17:12 I think that they’ve like gradually started to hire more and more folks
    0:17:13 that can do more internal things,
    0:17:15 but you have McKinsey, you have Palantir,
    0:17:17 that basically act as consultants.
    0:17:20 And they will look at the large data sets
    0:17:21 and they’ll kind of provide recommendations.
    0:17:23 Some percentage of those recommendations,
    0:17:26 oftentimes sub-50%, are taken.
    0:17:31 And what’s interesting about what you want from the ML models
    0:17:33 or the RL models is that you actually want them to tell you
    0:17:34 to do things that are counterintuitive
    0:17:37 because humans are naturally going to find
    0:17:39 like a local optimal operating condition.
    0:17:43 And it’s very risky to take shots outside of something
    0:17:44 that is currently working
    0:17:45 where there’s billion dollars on the line.
    0:17:48 And that culture of trusting
    0:17:51 the counterintuitive recommendation from the model
    0:17:53 is one that we want to try to build.
    0:17:54 And it’s hard to build that within large companies.
    0:17:56 I think on the construction side,
    0:17:57 when they build new projects,
    0:18:00 they’re building five, $10 billion projects.
    0:18:02 And so they are always bringing in an EPC
    0:18:04 and kind of like throwing that over the fence
    0:18:04 to the EPC.
    0:18:09 In the mining industry where it is a bespoke plant,
    0:18:11 like it is custom and you kind of need to think about
    0:18:13 the refinery and the mine
    0:18:16 and the processing facility as the product.
    0:18:17 And when you outsource that,
    0:18:18 you lose a lot of control
    0:18:20 of what you eventually are going to inherit and operate.
    0:18:24 And then EPCs, that model has shifted away a little bit
    0:18:26 from kind of like a turnkey,
    0:18:27 like we’ll deliver you a project.
    0:18:30 It’s kind of moved towards selling hours
    0:18:33 and like selling man hours and selling reports,
    0:18:34 especially in the mining industry
    0:18:37 where it’s like they’ll do a pre-feasibility study,
    0:18:38 they’ll do a feasibility study.
    0:18:40 And so there’s a lot of over the fence
    0:18:41 and outsourcing that happens in the large companies.
    0:18:45 And some of that comes from like the talent acquisition
    0:18:47 challenge that the mining industry
    0:18:48 has faced over the last 20 years.
    0:18:50 Again, the mining industry has not been
    0:18:53 this magnet for talent.
    0:18:55 And what that means is that
    0:18:56 even if they are able to hire
    0:18:58 kind of like the best in class machine learning engineers
    0:18:59 and the best in class software engineers,
    0:19:00 they’re not going to stay.
    0:19:02 They’re going to run into the wall of bureaucracy
    0:19:05 and they’re going to have higher paying opportunities
    0:19:07 in ZAS, FinTech, ad tech,
    0:19:08 and they’re going to go chase that.
    0:19:11 And so it’s not just attracting talent,
    0:19:11 it’s retaining talent.
    0:19:13 That has been a big challenge in the mining industry
    0:19:16 and that forces kind of like an outsourcing
    0:19:17 of a lot of the things that should be core today.
    0:19:20 I mean, we’ve seen this from the investor side.
    0:19:23 Like there are a lot of really exciting new technologies
    0:19:25 being developed for mining
    0:19:27 and a lot of incredibly impressive startups
    0:19:29 that are building for various pieces
    0:19:31 of the mining lifecycle journey,
    0:19:33 whether it’s autonomous vehicles or drilling
    0:19:37 or other various software and hardware tools for mining.
    0:19:39 But the challenge seems to be like,
    0:19:43 how do you get these kind of calcified large incumbents
    0:19:45 who operate in a very decentralized way,
    0:19:47 have very low risk appetite
    0:19:51 and not a strong internal culture or affinity for tech?
    0:19:52 Like how do you get them to adopt them quickly?
    0:19:53 Like if you’re a young startup,
    0:19:57 you’re sort of at the beck and call of this behemoth
    0:20:00 and you have very little control over your own destiny,
    0:20:02 which I think has made it really hard for tech
    0:20:04 to kind of penetrate this market up until now.
    0:20:05 That’s at least what we’ve observed.
    0:20:08 Yeah, I mean, calcified is a good word.
    0:20:10 I think the way that there’s construction companies
    0:20:11 and mining companies
    0:20:12 and really a lot of big companies
    0:20:15 is that the way that they’ll identify and evaluate risk
    0:20:17 is fixing the status quo
    0:20:20 or making like a step change improvement in the status quo
    0:20:22 kind of requires doing like a thousand things.
    0:20:25 But you’ll evaluate risk on each individual thing
    0:20:26 of that thousand things.
    0:20:29 And the downside of each individual thousand things
    0:20:30 is that the plant goes down,
    0:20:33 which is a multimillion dollar event.
    0:20:36 And so you’re really not incentivized to change things.
    0:20:38 Like even small changes could result
    0:20:39 in multimillion dollars of loss.
    0:20:42 And you need to kind of approach it of like,
    0:20:44 how do I do the thousand things all at once
    0:20:47 so that I’m not stacking incremental returns on innovation
    0:20:49 with the same risk every single time?
    0:20:51 And that’s where kind of like spot technical solutions
    0:20:53 are challenging to sell into the mining industry.
    0:20:54 And they’ll do pilots.
    0:20:55 They’ll definitely do a pilot.
    0:20:56 Like there’s no skin off their back
    0:20:57 to do kind of like a pilot,
    0:20:59 but you’ll end up doing a lot of pilots.
    0:21:02 And because they don’t build enough plants
    0:21:03 kind of sequentially,
    0:21:07 like they’ll build one big mine every five years, if that.
    0:21:09 And there just aren’t a lot of opportunities
    0:21:12 to get into a commercial scale application.
    0:21:13 And if you don’t time it perfectly,
    0:21:15 where like your pilot plant was five years before
    0:21:17 the commercial scale plant was planned for,
    0:21:19 like you’re not going to be in that one.
    0:21:20 So you’ll be in the next one,
    0:21:20 which is five years later.
    0:21:23 And so the pace at which the industry moves
    0:21:25 in terms of deploying commercial scale infrastructure
    0:21:27 means that there just isn’t a lot of opportunity
    0:21:29 to get new tech into commercial scale applications.
    0:21:31 And so there’s a lot of folks
    0:21:32 that are doing like SaaS products,
    0:21:34 which is kind of the lowest cost way
    0:21:36 to generate uplift in a mining project
    0:21:37 or a minerals refinery.
    0:21:41 And the like barrier there is ultimately
    0:21:43 how do you get the operators to trust
    0:21:45 the SaaS tool from this small company
    0:21:47 that is trying to kind of tell you how to run a plant.
    0:21:49 And the culture is typically,
    0:21:50 don’t touch my things,
    0:21:51 don’t touch my cash register.
    0:21:53 And what do you all know about running a mine?
    0:21:54 And it does stack up.
    0:21:56 I’ve been calling it a death spiral
    0:21:57 for a lot of the folks
    0:21:59 that are trying to sell into the mining industry
    0:21:59 because it’s hard.
    0:22:02 Just to like step back a little bit
    0:22:03 on the geopolitical context,
    0:22:04 the stuff you’re describing,
    0:22:06 I think very obviously true
    0:22:07 with a lot of Western companies,
    0:22:08 but at the same time,
    0:22:09 a lot of Chinese companies
    0:22:12 that have sprouted over the last 20, 30 years
    0:22:13 have grown rapidly.
    0:22:15 Curious, why do you think that is?
    0:22:17 Yeah, I mean, I think that there’s like
    0:22:20 a lot of top-down and early recognition
    0:22:22 that critical minerals were going to be critical
    0:22:24 and needed to be supported.
    0:22:25 And so like shouldn’t kind of like
    0:22:27 the everything around policy
    0:22:29 and everything around kind of like supporting companies
    0:22:31 to go and deploy both infrastructure domestically
    0:22:33 and infrastructure internationally
    0:22:35 to kind of like secure critical minerals,
    0:22:37 build infrastructure that secures a position.
    0:22:38 Like that has definitely happened.
    0:22:40 But I think that what people often
    0:22:41 don’t talk about enough
    0:22:44 is that the talent pool is insane.
    0:22:46 Like it is not just a large talent pool.
    0:22:49 It is a large, skilled, experienced talent pool.
    0:22:51 I was in Indonesia in February
    0:22:53 and was kind of visiting
    0:22:56 one of the recent Chinese nickel refining operations.
    0:22:58 so they buy ore.
    0:22:59 They also have some mining operations.
    0:23:02 But they had 13,000 people on site
    0:23:04 during construction and commissioning.
    0:23:07 And if we were building a refinery in the U.S.,
    0:23:08 which we did,
    0:23:10 it’s hard to mobilize a tenth of that realistically.
    0:23:12 And it’s not just about the number of people.
    0:23:14 It’s about being able to iterate
    0:23:15 on every individual work front
    0:23:17 as fast as humanly possible.
    0:23:19 And we just don’t have that label.
    0:23:21 15 years ago or 20 years ago,
    0:23:23 would the same companies that were big now
    0:23:24 have been big then?
    0:23:26 Where is kind of the evolution of the space event?
    0:23:27 Yeah, I think that there’s been
    0:23:28 like a clear splintering
    0:23:30 on kind of who does the exploration
    0:23:32 and who does the development.
    0:23:32 Like right now,
    0:23:33 the industry is set up
    0:23:34 where junior mining companies,
    0:23:35 which don’t mine,
    0:23:36 they explore,
    0:23:37 go and sometimes
    0:23:38 they’ll get maybe a resource
    0:23:40 from a major mining company
    0:23:41 that’s held in their portfolio
    0:23:41 for a long time.
    0:23:44 But it’s like a different risk-reward profile
    0:23:45 than what the mining majors
    0:23:46 are ultimately looking for.
    0:23:48 And so you have this junior mining ecosystem
    0:23:50 that sometimes is well-funded
    0:23:51 and sometimes is competing for capital
    0:23:53 with the cannabis industry in Canada.
    0:23:55 And they’re taking shots in the dark.
    0:23:56 And there’s a lot of work
    0:23:57 that’s going into trying to
    0:23:59 make that exploration activity
    0:23:59 more intelligent,
    0:24:00 streamline it,
    0:24:02 drill less exploration holes
    0:24:03 while still being able
    0:24:04 to interpolate
    0:24:05 or extrapolate
    0:24:06 what is in between
    0:24:06 those drill holes.
    0:24:07 But it’s a,
    0:24:08 you’re going out
    0:24:10 in kind of the middle of nowhere.
    0:24:11 Either it’s really far north
    0:24:12 in like the Arctic Circle
    0:24:13 or the Yukon
    0:24:14 or it’s overseas in Africa
    0:24:15 and you’re doing exploration
    0:24:16 or it’s in Southeast Asia
    0:24:17 or in South America.
    0:24:19 And those folks,
    0:24:20 like they have one job,
    0:24:22 which is to define a resource
    0:24:23 and pump up its value sufficiently
    0:24:24 to flip it to a major.
    0:24:26 And there’s a lot of companies
    0:24:27 that aren’t able
    0:24:28 to discover a resource
    0:24:30 that is either large enough
    0:24:31 because the big mining companies,
    0:24:32 like they want to deploy
    0:24:34 large amounts of capital.
    0:24:34 We’re talking about
    0:24:36 like multi-billion dollar investments.
    0:24:37 And so they won’t really look
    0:24:38 at projects
    0:24:40 that don’t have the scale
    0:24:41 that kind of enable them
    0:24:41 to underwrite
    0:24:42 their own inefficiency.
    0:24:43 Like they want to build
    0:24:44 really large infrastructure
    0:24:45 that enables them
    0:24:46 to capture the economies of scale.
    0:24:48 And so there’s actually
    0:24:48 a really long tail
    0:24:49 of mining projects
    0:24:51 that don’t have the scale
    0:24:52 that would justify
    0:24:53 getting acquired
    0:24:53 at a major premium.
    0:24:55 And so they’ll go
    0:24:56 into this kind of orphan period
    0:24:57 is what it’s called
    0:24:57 in the industry.
    0:24:59 And it’s hard for them
    0:25:00 to break out
    0:25:00 of that orphan period.
    0:25:01 And that’s kind of
    0:25:02 where we see our ability
    0:25:03 to kind of step in
    0:25:04 as a more efficient
    0:25:05 builder and operator
    0:25:06 is kind of take these
    0:25:08 what the industry calls
    0:25:08 subscale assets,
    0:25:10 but we see metal there,
    0:25:11 and come in
    0:25:11 and bring those
    0:25:12 into production
    0:25:12 as we kind of
    0:25:13 are building the platform
    0:25:14 and then eventually
    0:25:15 scale into the same scale
    0:25:16 that the big mining companies
    0:25:16 are operating at.
    0:25:17 Your thesis being
    0:25:18 that you can
    0:25:21 get the metal out
    0:25:22 and process it
    0:25:22 into a product
    0:25:23 that you can sell
    0:25:24 more efficiently
    0:25:26 than the majors
    0:25:26 such that it’s
    0:25:27 economically viable.
    0:25:29 To offset the scale advantage.
    0:25:29 Yeah.
    0:25:29 Yeah.
    0:25:30 I think this might be
    0:25:31 a good opportunity
    0:25:32 then to talk
    0:25:32 a little bit more
    0:25:33 about what is
    0:25:35 Mariana’s product.
    0:25:36 You said
    0:25:37 a few minutes ago
    0:25:38 you’re not a SaaS product.
    0:25:39 What does it mean
    0:25:41 to be a diversified
    0:25:43 metal and minerals company,
    0:25:44 technology-enabled
    0:25:45 mining company?
    0:25:46 Give us a little bit
    0:25:46 more detail.
    0:25:48 So we’re a
    0:25:49 vertically integrated
    0:25:50 software-first
    0:25:51 minerals project
    0:25:51 developer and operator.
    0:25:52 And so we focus
    0:25:53 on the back end
    0:25:54 of the minerals
    0:25:55 value chain,
    0:25:56 which is actually
    0:25:57 doing the detailed
    0:25:58 engineering,
    0:25:58 getting through
    0:25:59 the permitting,
    0:26:00 building the asset,
    0:26:01 commissioning the asset,
    0:26:02 and then operating
    0:26:02 the asset.
    0:26:04 And going back
    0:26:05 to some of what
    0:26:05 we were talking about
    0:26:06 around the labor pool,
    0:26:08 like those labor pool
    0:26:09 shortages exist in construction
    0:26:10 and they exist in mining.
    0:26:11 Like they’re felt
    0:26:11 very,
    0:26:12 very intensely.
    0:26:13 And so our
    0:26:14 fundamental thesis
    0:26:14 is that
    0:26:16 with a contracting labor pool,
    0:26:17 you have to start
    0:26:18 with an awesome team.
    0:26:19 The table stakes
    0:26:20 is that you build
    0:26:20 an awesome team.
    0:26:21 But how do you
    0:26:23 enable 200 people
    0:26:24 to do what
    0:26:24 10,000 people
    0:26:25 are needed
    0:26:25 to do today,
    0:26:27 at least on the
    0:26:27 parent co side
    0:26:28 of things.
    0:26:29 And that comes from
    0:26:30 leveraging the
    0:26:31 recent advances
    0:26:32 in LLMs
    0:26:33 to automate
    0:26:34 workflows in the
    0:26:34 construction side
    0:26:35 of things,
    0:26:35 in the engineering
    0:26:36 side of things,
    0:26:36 in the procurement
    0:26:37 side of things,
    0:26:38 which take an
    0:26:38 insane amount
    0:26:39 of time.
    0:26:39 You make a lot
    0:26:40 of lists and you
    0:26:41 fat finger a lot
    0:26:41 of data between
    0:26:42 databases.
    0:26:43 And that is all
    0:26:44 about reducing
    0:26:46 churn in construction.
    0:26:47 Churn and latency.
    0:26:48 Latency is one
    0:26:49 thing that I think
    0:26:50 people sometimes
    0:26:50 don’t appreciate
    0:26:52 from status quo
    0:26:53 construction,
    0:26:53 like large-scale
    0:26:54 megaprojects,
    0:26:55 is that what’s
    0:26:55 happening in the
    0:26:56 field and what
    0:26:57 the back office
    0:26:57 kind of sees or
    0:26:58 what the executive
    0:26:59 team sees or what
    0:27:00 the project director
    0:27:01 sees, there’s a
    0:27:02 three-week lag
    0:27:02 generally for
    0:27:03 really large
    0:27:04 construction projects
    0:27:04 where you are
    0:27:05 trying to aggregate
    0:27:06 data from all
    0:27:06 the different
    0:27:08 contractors and
    0:27:08 all the different
    0:27:09 parts of the
    0:27:10 facility into a
    0:27:11 consolidated integrated
    0:27:12 schedule, which
    0:27:12 you can then make
    0:27:13 decisions off of,
    0:27:14 like how do I
    0:27:14 prioritize what I’m
    0:27:15 doing today?
    0:27:16 And the way you
    0:27:17 run in between
    0:27:18 those three weeks
    0:27:19 is people stand
    0:27:20 in circles every
    0:27:20 morning and they
    0:27:21 say, what are you
    0:27:21 doing today, what
    0:27:22 are you doing
    0:27:22 today, what are
    0:27:22 you doing today?
    0:27:23 And they go off
    0:27:24 and they do the
    0:27:24 thing, they’ll send
    0:27:25 like a very brief
    0:27:26 kind of progress
    0:27:28 report back, and
    0:27:29 it takes a long
    0:27:30 time to then take
    0:27:30 those progress
    0:27:31 reports and
    0:27:31 actually measure
    0:27:33 progress so that
    0:27:34 you can reevaluate
    0:27:35 priorities and
    0:27:35 understand kind of
    0:27:36 like how the
    0:27:36 project is trending.
    0:27:37 And so we’re
    0:27:38 really trying to
    0:27:38 accelerate and
    0:27:39 democratize access
    0:27:40 to data,
    0:27:42 fundamentally, and
    0:27:43 run construction
    0:27:44 projects like
    0:27:45 manufacturing facilities.
    0:27:46 And it starts
    0:27:46 there.
    0:27:47 And the reason
    0:27:47 construction and
    0:27:48 mining are so
    0:27:49 kind of integrated
    0:27:49 and some people
    0:27:50 might disagree with
    0:27:51 me, but like a
    0:27:52 mining project is a
    0:27:53 big civil construction
    0:27:53 project.
    0:27:54 It just never ends.
    0:27:56 It’s more like a
    0:27:58 deconstruction project.
    0:27:58 Yeah, that’s fair.
    0:28:00 Well, you do, when
    0:28:00 you’re, you have to
    0:28:02 construct piles.
    0:28:02 And you’re building
    0:28:03 piles.
    0:28:03 Okay.
    0:28:04 But there’s actually a
    0:28:05 lot of similarities in
    0:28:06 kind of like just
    0:28:07 moving the dirt for
    0:28:07 like site prep.
    0:28:10 And the same kind of
    0:28:11 like software stack that
    0:28:12 is enabling you to get
    0:28:13 feedback from the
    0:28:14 field live is the
    0:28:15 same thing that the
    0:28:16 mining industry
    0:28:16 struggles with.
    0:28:18 Mining companies will
    0:28:19 lose equipment,
    0:28:20 especially in
    0:28:20 underground mines that
    0:28:21 are like these like
    0:28:21 deep mazes.
    0:28:22 And the industry is
    0:28:23 getting better at
    0:28:24 having like actual
    0:28:25 location sensing on
    0:28:25 like where the
    0:28:26 equipment is.
    0:28:27 But losing equipment
    0:28:28 in a mine is like
    0:28:28 how it used to be a
    0:28:29 super common thing.
    0:28:30 But, you know, we
    0:28:31 start with construction
    0:28:32 and then we start to
    0:28:33 get into the second
    0:28:35 core software stack is
    0:28:35 what we’re calling
    0:28:36 PlantOS.
    0:28:37 The construction stack
    0:28:38 is Capital Project
    0:28:38 OS.
    0:28:39 And PlantOS is really
    0:28:40 aimed at removing
    0:28:41 humans from the loop
    0:28:42 and deciding how the
    0:28:43 chemical processing
    0:28:44 operations and the
    0:28:44 refining operations
    0:28:45 work.
    0:28:46 And big refineries
    0:28:47 are effectively big
    0:28:47 robots.
    0:28:49 You have the sensing
    0:28:50 and telemetry, you
    0:28:51 have the actuators to
    0:28:52 control how the plant
    0:28:54 operates, and imagine
    0:28:55 like teleoperating
    0:28:56 humanoid robots like
    0:28:57 forever.
    0:28:57 That is what the
    0:28:58 refining industry and
    0:28:59 the pressing industry
    0:28:59 has been.
    0:29:01 And there’s obviously
    0:29:02 PID control loops that
    0:29:03 kind of maintain set
    0:29:04 points so you can
    0:29:05 maintain temperature
    0:29:06 automatically, maintain
    0:29:07 pH automatically.
    0:29:08 But the thing that
    0:29:08 really matters is that
    0:29:10 the feed material to
    0:29:11 the pressing facilities
    0:29:12 is constantly changing
    0:29:13 because the ore body
    0:29:14 is changing over
    0:29:14 time.
    0:29:15 And so the way
    0:29:15 that the industry
    0:29:16 manages that today
    0:29:17 is they will blend
    0:29:18 the feedstock to
    0:29:19 minimize variability
    0:29:20 that’s going into
    0:29:20 the processing
    0:29:21 facilities, and that
    0:29:22 enables them to
    0:29:23 minimize the amount
    0:29:24 of change that has
    0:29:24 to happen on a
    0:29:25 processing facility.
    0:29:26 So we’re trying to
    0:29:27 flip that and say,
    0:29:28 okay, if we build a
    0:29:30 hyperdynamic and
    0:29:31 highly flexible
    0:29:32 refining circuit,
    0:29:33 ideally without adding
    0:29:33 a whole bunch of
    0:29:35 costs, what does that
    0:29:36 do to optimizing the
    0:29:37 global operation from
    0:29:37 the mine to the
    0:29:37 refinery?
    0:29:38 But it’s first
    0:29:39 aimed at reducing
    0:29:40 reagent consumption,
    0:29:41 reducing energy
    0:29:41 consumption.
    0:29:42 And Google kind of
    0:29:43 proved this.
    0:29:44 They bought DeepMind
    0:29:47 in 2016, 2017, and
    0:29:48 one of the first
    0:29:48 things they did was
    0:29:49 throw the DeepMind
    0:29:50 team at automating
    0:29:51 and optimizing the
    0:29:52 data center thermal
    0:29:52 systems.
    0:29:53 So air handler,
    0:29:54 chiller, cooling
    0:29:54 tower.
    0:29:56 And that’s not a
    0:29:57 super complex system.
    0:29:58 You have weather,
    0:29:59 which is a factor.
    0:29:59 You have loads
    0:30:00 within the building,
    0:30:01 which is a factor.
    0:30:01 But you ultimately
    0:30:02 have nine control
    0:30:03 variables between
    0:30:05 airflow rate, supplier
    0:30:06 temperature, the
    0:30:07 cooling water
    0:30:08 temperatures, and
    0:30:08 flow rates, both
    0:30:09 in the chiller
    0:30:09 system and the
    0:30:10 cooling tower
    0:30:10 system.
    0:30:12 And just in that
    0:30:13 relatively simple
    0:30:14 system, they were
    0:30:14 able to reduce
    0:30:15 energy consumption by
    0:30:16 30, 40%.
    0:30:16 Yeah, it was like
    0:30:17 40%.
    0:30:18 And it happened
    0:30:19 relatively quickly.
    0:30:20 And so that’s the
    0:30:21 opportunity when you
    0:30:22 remove humans from
    0:30:22 making the decisions
    0:30:23 on how kind of like
    0:30:24 these process systems
    0:30:25 operate.
    0:30:26 That’s the opportunity.
    0:30:27 And then when we
    0:30:28 look at kind of
    0:30:29 refining and processing
    0:30:30 facilities, that’s
    0:30:31 like a thousand
    0:30:32 control variables.
    0:30:33 And it’s no longer
    0:30:35 single pass, because
    0:30:35 what’s really
    0:30:36 interesting about
    0:30:37 minerals refining is
    0:30:37 that you never want
    0:30:38 to lose the
    0:30:38 metal, right?
    0:30:40 Every atom that
    0:30:41 you lose kind of in
    0:30:41 the processing facility
    0:30:42 is another atom that
    0:30:42 you have to mine.
    0:30:44 So recovery in the
    0:30:45 refinery is actually
    0:30:46 like the biggest lever
    0:30:46 when it comes to
    0:30:47 cost.
    0:30:48 And so what that
    0:30:48 means is that the
    0:30:49 upstream unit
    0:30:50 operations think of a
    0:30:51 refinery as like 20
    0:30:52 unit operations kind of
    0:30:54 all in series in a
    0:30:55 relatively simple
    0:30:55 refinery.
    0:30:56 The upstream
    0:30:57 operations obviously
    0:30:58 impact the downstream
    0:30:59 operations, because if
    0:31:00 you’re changing the
    0:31:00 process conditions in
    0:31:01 the upstream
    0:31:02 operation, that changes
    0:31:02 what the downstream
    0:31:03 operation is seeing.
    0:31:05 but the downstream
    0:31:06 operations will
    0:31:07 recycle the reject
    0:31:08 stream back into the
    0:31:09 upstream operations.
    0:31:11 And so it’s this big
    0:31:13 interconnected web, and
    0:31:13 it’s a high latency
    0:31:15 web also, where if you
    0:31:16 make a change in one
    0:31:17 part of the circuit, you
    0:31:18 may not see that change
    0:31:20 cascade for another 24 or
    0:31:21 48 hours.
    0:31:22 And when we’re
    0:31:23 commissioning refineries
    0:31:25 like the world, that
    0:31:26 like latency ends up
    0:31:28 being a major driver of
    0:31:28 kind of the time it
    0:31:29 takes to bring a
    0:31:31 refining operation to
    0:31:32 spec and eventually
    0:31:32 ramp it to throughput.
    0:31:33 There are some
    0:31:34 refineries that were
    0:31:35 built recently that
    0:31:35 are still not
    0:31:35 commissioned.
    0:31:36 They were built like
    0:31:38 three years ago, but
    0:31:39 the Chinese companies
    0:31:40 are doing it in six
    0:31:40 months.
    0:31:41 And a lot of Western
    0:31:43 companies, it takes two
    0:31:44 to four years.
    0:31:46 And that stacks up, where
    0:31:47 we need to build like an
    0:31:48 insane number of mines
    0:31:49 and refineries, and if
    0:31:50 you are kind of four
    0:31:51 times longer or five
    0:31:52 times longer every time
    0:31:53 you build a refinery.
    0:31:54 At every step of the
    0:31:54 process.
    0:31:54 Yeah.
    0:31:56 And so we’re trying to
    0:31:56 bring down the time
    0:31:57 that it takes to bring
    0:31:58 the refinery to spec,
    0:32:00 basically, throughput, and
    0:32:00 hitting the kind of like
    0:32:02 output requirements of the
    0:32:02 product that you’re
    0:32:03 making.
    0:32:04 And then ultimately, you
    0:32:05 start this historically
    0:32:08 very long haul of
    0:32:09 gradually bringing down
    0:32:10 the cost over time.
    0:32:11 And that’s something that
    0:32:12 we think that reinforcement
    0:32:13 learning is going to do
    0:32:14 quickly, much, much
    0:32:15 faster, kind of like in
    0:32:16 line with what Google
    0:32:17 demonstrated with the
    0:32:17 thermal systems and data
    0:32:19 centers, is achieve
    0:32:21 global optimal operating
    0:32:23 conditions on an order
    0:32:24 of magnitude faster
    0:32:24 timescale.
    0:32:25 So how do you think
    0:32:26 about, like, you’re
    0:32:27 building a company that
    0:32:30 mines and refines a
    0:32:30 product.
    0:32:32 There’s a lot of tech
    0:32:33 that you can interject at
    0:32:35 essentially every step of
    0:32:36 that process.
    0:32:37 Like, how are you deciding
    0:32:38 what to build, where to
    0:32:40 partner, what are you
    0:32:41 developing in-house versus
    0:32:42 where are you going to
    0:32:42 market?
    0:32:44 Yeah, I think at the
    0:32:45 beginning we’re focused on
    0:32:46 how do we take kind of
    0:32:47 commercially demonstrated
    0:32:49 unit operations and be a
    0:32:50 better integrator and a
    0:32:52 better, like, operator of
    0:32:52 that integrated circuit.
    0:32:54 And so focus on the
    0:32:55 software systems that
    0:32:56 enable you to kind of
    0:32:57 control the plant more
    0:32:57 optimally.
    0:32:59 And that’s generally what
    0:33:01 project-level financing
    0:33:02 parties want to see also.
    0:33:03 Like, it’s hard to get
    0:33:04 project finance on a
    0:33:05 first-of-a-kind facility
    0:33:06 where you’re demonstrating
    0:33:07 a new unit operation for
    0:33:08 the first time.
    0:33:09 And so we think that as
    0:33:10 we’re kind of entering the
    0:33:11 market, the right place to
    0:33:13 start is take commercially
    0:33:14 demonstrated individual
    0:33:15 unit operations that
    0:33:16 operate globally and go
    0:33:17 after the uplift that’s
    0:33:18 available just by being a
    0:33:19 better integrated operator.
    0:33:21 There’s a whole bunch of
    0:33:22 bottlenecks in building
    0:33:24 these facilities that we
    0:33:25 will need to solve.
    0:33:26 I mean, the, like,
    0:33:27 industrial supply base just
    0:33:28 for, like, manufacturing
    0:33:29 tanks is broken.
    0:33:31 Like, there’s specialty.
    0:33:32 That’s a new one.
    0:33:33 Like, things that we kind
    0:33:34 of take for granted just
    0:33:36 take a really long time if
    0:33:37 you want to not go to
    0:33:38 China for sourcing that
    0:33:38 equipment.
    0:33:40 And that has a big impact
    0:33:41 on the operating side of
    0:33:42 things, too, where the
    0:33:43 supply chain for, like, a
    0:33:45 new pump in Australia could
    0:33:47 take 30 weeks and getting
    0:33:49 that exact same pump, but
    0:33:50 with a mine in China, it
    0:33:51 shows up in a week or
    0:33:52 three days.
    0:33:53 And so that entire
    0:33:53 industrial, like,
    0:33:56 equipment supply base, we’re
    0:33:56 going to have to look at
    0:33:57 some point.
    0:33:58 And that’s obviously a much
    0:33:59 bigger bite to go after,
    0:33:59 like, commodity equipment
    0:34:00 manufacturing.
    0:34:01 You’re not going to
    0:34:02 vertically integrate to be a
    0:34:03 mining equipment
    0:34:04 manufacturing company, are you?
    0:34:04 Mining equipment manufacturing
    0:34:04 company.
    0:34:05 I don’t think so.
    0:34:06 I hope not.
    0:34:06 You’ll let me know.
    0:34:07 That’s right.
    0:34:08 Well, this is the kind of
    0:34:09 what is the incentive
    0:34:10 structure of the partners and
    0:34:11 the suppliers, and is it
    0:34:12 required or not?
    0:34:13 I think that there’s a
    0:34:14 whole bunch of companies
    0:34:15 that are working on awesome,
    0:34:16 like, novel process
    0:34:18 technologies that have not
    0:34:19 quite gotten over the
    0:34:21 hump trying to sell to the
    0:34:21 big mining companies.
    0:34:23 And we want to be the
    0:34:24 customer that helps
    0:34:25 accelerate commercial
    0:34:26 deployment, and the
    0:34:26 partner that helps
    0:34:27 accelerate commercial
    0:34:27 deployment.
    0:34:29 And one of the big issues
    0:34:30 that comes up when you’re
    0:34:31 kind of, like, deploying
    0:34:32 new processing technologies
    0:34:33 is that part of the
    0:34:34 reason why it takes a long
    0:34:35 time for it to get to the
    0:34:36 point where it’s
    0:34:37 commercially viable, other
    0:34:38 than all the headwinds
    0:34:38 from the industry being
    0:34:39 conservative and process
    0:34:40 driven and all those
    0:34:41 things, is that, like,
    0:34:42 humans have actually never
    0:34:44 operated that process
    0:34:46 chemistry at scale before.
    0:34:47 And so you’ll learn a
    0:34:48 bunch of things at pilot
    0:34:49 scale, but pilot doesn’t
    0:34:50 really tell you what’s
    0:34:51 happening at commercial
    0:34:51 scale.
    0:34:51 And you have to train
    0:34:51 people.
    0:34:52 You have to train the
    0:34:53 people to operate it.
    0:34:54 It’s, like, new
    0:34:55 environmental things that
    0:34:56 might come up depending
    0:34:56 on the chemical that you’re
    0:34:57 using.
    0:34:59 And that, like, scale
    0:35:00 jump is actually something
    0:35:02 that we think that RL will
    0:35:03 enable with a pretty
    0:35:04 meaningful pace
    0:35:06 adjustment where you don’t
    0:35:07 need the humans to kind
    0:35:08 of, like, fine-tune the
    0:35:09 process conditions around a
    0:35:10 new process chemistry
    0:35:12 because the plant OS is
    0:35:12 doing it.
    0:35:14 Ryan and Erin, how
    0:35:15 did we approach this
    0:35:15 industry?
    0:35:16 Is this a space that we
    0:35:16 spent a lot of time
    0:35:17 thinking about or
    0:35:18 thinking about opportunities
    0:35:19 in the space, or how
    0:35:20 did we approach it?
    0:35:21 We wanted to do a mining
    0:35:23 investment for a long
    0:35:23 time.
    0:35:24 When you think about
    0:35:26 venture capital, we
    0:35:28 care about massive
    0:35:29 markets.
    0:35:32 And there’s not that
    0:35:33 many massive markets
    0:35:34 left that have been
    0:35:35 sort of, like, largely
    0:35:36 untapped by technology.
    0:35:38 And mining sort of
    0:35:39 screams one of the
    0:35:40 largest markets in the
    0:35:40 world.
    0:35:42 Very little adoption of
    0:35:43 technology.
    0:35:45 So, over many cycles, we
    0:35:46 have gone out and
    0:35:48 spent a lot of time
    0:35:49 meeting companies.
    0:35:50 And as I mentioned
    0:35:51 before, the challenge is
    0:35:53 how do you sell a point
    0:35:54 solution or a point
    0:35:56 piece of technology into
    0:35:57 this industry that has
    0:36:00 very little incentive to
    0:36:01 adopt it and also has a
    0:36:02 very complicated
    0:36:03 geopolitical dynamic
    0:36:04 where you have a very
    0:36:05 large global player with
    0:36:06 their hand on the
    0:36:06 scale.
    0:36:08 We put out a piece a
    0:36:09 couple weeks ago around
    0:36:10 our thesis in mining and
    0:36:11 why we think a vertical
    0:36:13 mining company is the
    0:36:14 answer because we
    0:36:15 actually do believe you
    0:36:16 have to control every
    0:36:19 single piece of the
    0:36:21 entire journey, the
    0:36:22 entire life cycle of an
    0:36:23 atom of metal end-to-end
    0:36:24 to actually be able to
    0:36:25 build a tech company
    0:36:25 here.
    0:36:26 This is not about a
    0:36:28 point solution for one
    0:36:29 particular part of the
    0:36:29 process.
    0:36:30 In order to actually
    0:36:31 capture the gains and
    0:36:32 efficiency and build a
    0:36:33 feasible business, you
    0:36:34 really have to own the
    0:36:35 entire process end-to-end.
    0:36:36 The only thing I’d add
    0:36:37 there is that this is the
    0:36:38 intersection of
    0:36:39 geopolitical urgency
    0:36:40 technology and tech.
    0:36:41 To what Seth Turner’s
    0:36:42 been talking about, it’s
    0:36:42 like now we have
    0:36:43 technology that can
    0:36:44 actually go and
    0:36:44 disrupt this.
    0:36:45 There also is a
    0:36:46 talent base, people
    0:36:47 coming from companies
    0:36:48 like Tesla, SpaceX,
    0:36:49 Andrel, other sort of
    0:36:50 hard tech companies
    0:36:51 working in sort of dirty
    0:36:53 spaces, willing to go out
    0:36:54 in the fields.
    0:36:54 Roll up their sleeves.
    0:36:55 Yeah, roll up their
    0:36:56 sleeves, go out in the
    0:36:56 middle of the desert and
    0:36:57 work on this stuff.
    0:36:58 So now is the time to
    0:36:59 build this company.
    0:37:00 And the political
    0:37:00 tailwinds are there.
    0:37:02 Even my conservationist
    0:37:03 mother, who I think if
    0:37:05 like we had this
    0:37:06 conversation five years
    0:37:07 ago, she would have
    0:37:08 clutched her pearls.
    0:37:09 She doesn’t wear pearls,
    0:37:10 but she would have
    0:37:10 clutched her pearls at
    0:37:12 the idea of domestic
    0:37:13 U.S. onshore mining.
    0:37:15 I think broadly speaking,
    0:37:16 the American public and
    0:37:17 certainly the government
    0:37:18 has come around to the
    0:37:21 idea that metals are in
    0:37:22 every single thing we
    0:37:22 use as consumers.
    0:37:24 Our supply chains are
    0:37:25 highly reliant on
    0:37:25 China.
    0:37:26 It’s a huge problem.
    0:37:27 We have to figure out
    0:37:28 how to address it.
    0:37:29 And that means investing
    0:37:30 in mining in the U.S.
    0:37:31 again.
    0:37:32 You mentioned like
    0:37:33 rare earths, you
    0:37:33 mentioned lithium and
    0:37:34 things like that, but
    0:37:35 there are many different
    0:37:35 critical minerals.
    0:37:36 You talked a little
    0:37:37 about in the very
    0:37:37 beginning, but
    0:37:38 specifically, what are
    0:37:39 the interesting ones for
    0:37:40 you?
    0:37:41 How does that map to
    0:37:42 sort of what people see
    0:37:43 on the headlines and
    0:37:44 where the business
    0:37:45 opportunities are?
    0:37:46 Yeah, I mean, when we
    0:37:47 look at what needs to
    0:37:48 happen in the next 10
    0:37:49 years and forecasted
    0:37:49 demand will only
    0:37:50 materialize if the
    0:37:51 supply is there, so
    0:37:52 we’ll see if that
    0:37:53 forecasted demand
    0:37:53 materializes.
    0:37:55 The metals that
    0:37:55 actually need to grow
    0:37:57 the most by like mass
    0:37:58 flow rate are like the
    0:37:59 big metals.
    0:38:00 Like we need a lot of
    0:38:00 aluminum.
    0:38:01 We need an insane
    0:38:01 amount of copper.
    0:38:03 We need more iron.
    0:38:03 We need more zinc.
    0:38:04 What are some of the
    0:38:05 things that these
    0:38:05 metals are in?
    0:38:06 Yeah, sure thing.
    0:38:07 I mean, like iron goes
    0:38:07 in everything that is
    0:38:08 infrastructure.
    0:38:09 We got iron.
    0:38:09 We’re good with iron.
    0:38:10 Zinc is one that people
    0:38:11 sleep on because you
    0:38:12 actually have to galvanize
    0:38:13 a lot of that steel, and
    0:38:15 so zinc oftentimes kind of
    0:38:17 pops up every once in a
    0:38:17 while as being something
    0:38:19 that we really do need to
    0:38:19 continue to focus on.
    0:38:21 Copper is the workhorse
    0:38:22 of this push to
    0:38:24 electrify everything and to
    0:38:26 just grow the grid to be
    0:38:27 able to supply AI, to be
    0:38:28 able to enable
    0:38:29 accelerated renewable
    0:38:31 penetration, for EV
    0:38:32 penetration to happen,
    0:38:32 like you’re going to
    0:38:33 need a lot of copper.
    0:38:34 Aluminum is one that I
    0:38:36 think is underestimated.
    0:38:37 People underestimate kind
    0:38:38 of its importance.
    0:38:38 It’s actually like the
    0:38:39 number one most consumed
    0:38:41 metal in defense
    0:38:41 applications.
    0:38:43 Like the grid is, people
    0:38:44 talk a lot about copper,
    0:38:44 but there’s a lot of
    0:38:46 aluminum like conductors
    0:38:47 in the transmission lines
    0:38:48 that are critical to
    0:38:49 actually growing the
    0:38:50 grid capacity.
    0:38:51 And in automotive,
    0:38:52 obviously, aluminum is
    0:38:52 big.
    0:38:53 Magnesium has a whole
    0:38:54 bunch of defense
    0:38:55 applications, potentially
    0:38:57 could get more into
    0:38:58 automotive applications
    0:38:58 and like for
    0:38:59 lightweight metals.
    0:39:01 Lithium needs to
    0:39:02 4x in terms of
    0:39:03 production capacity in
    0:39:04 the next 10 years,
    0:39:05 roughly, in order for
    0:39:06 the batteries that we
    0:39:07 want to build to be
    0:39:07 built.
    0:39:08 Well, we’re all about
    0:39:08 batteries.
    0:39:09 Right, right, right.
    0:39:11 And then nickel is a
    0:39:12 big one.
    0:39:13 I think that what has
    0:39:14 happened in nickel in the
    0:39:16 last five years is
    0:39:17 Indonesian production
    0:39:18 capacity has scaled to
    0:39:18 the point where it’s
    0:39:19 now something like 70%
    0:39:21 of global nickel comes
    0:39:21 out of Indonesia.
    0:39:22 And a lot of that was
    0:39:23 on the back of like
    0:39:24 meaningful investment
    0:39:25 from China to be able
    0:39:26 to kind of expand
    0:39:27 production capacity in
    0:39:28 Indonesia and then
    0:39:29 also do more of the
    0:39:29 downstream processing
    0:39:30 in Indonesia.
    0:39:31 And nickel goes into
    0:39:32 everything that is
    0:39:33 specialty alloys,
    0:39:34 anything that needs
    0:39:35 high temperature or
    0:39:36 corrosion resistance,
    0:39:37 and also is like
    0:39:38 kind of the unsung
    0:39:39 hero of high energy
    0:39:41 batteries where these
    0:39:41 lithiated transition
    0:39:42 metal oxides, which
    0:39:43 are high nickel.
    0:39:45 Manganese is important.
    0:39:46 Manganese goes into a
    0:39:47 lot of alloys and also
    0:39:48 goes into batteries.
    0:39:50 The uranium, if
    0:39:51 fission is going to
    0:39:51 continue to grow and
    0:39:52 we’re going to continue
    0:39:53 to like deploy more
    0:39:54 nuclear capacity in the
    0:39:55 U.S., then uranium is
    0:39:55 going to be needed.
    0:39:57 It’s a long list.
    0:39:58 And the rare earths,
    0:39:59 they’re important,
    0:39:59 obviously.
    0:40:01 They are omnipresent in
    0:40:02 like everything that we
    0:40:02 use.
    0:40:04 But they show up as a
    0:40:05 relatively small on a
    0:40:06 volume basis when you
    0:40:07 look at kind of the
    0:40:08 stack of metals that we
    0:40:08 need to mine.
    0:40:10 Definitely we need a ton
    0:40:11 of process innovation in
    0:40:13 how rare earths are
    0:40:13 refined.
    0:40:14 Solvent extraction
    0:40:15 circuits are kind of
    0:40:16 like the status quo.
    0:40:17 The chemical intensity
    0:40:18 is high and the
    0:40:19 recoveries are relatively
    0:40:19 low.
    0:40:21 And the know-how is
    0:40:21 kind of like highly
    0:40:22 concentrated in China.
    0:40:24 But it is a little bit
    0:40:25 of a frothy market
    0:40:25 right now.
    0:40:26 And so being a
    0:40:27 diversified minerals
    0:40:28 company kind of enables
    0:40:29 us to pick our spots
    0:40:30 in areas where it
    0:40:30 makes sense.
    0:40:31 Like these things still
    0:40:32 do move on commodity
    0:40:33 cycles.
    0:40:34 And you actually want
    0:40:34 to be building
    0:40:35 infrastructure at the
    0:40:36 bottom of commodity
    0:40:37 cycles, not at the
    0:40:37 top of commodity
    0:40:37 cycles.
    0:40:39 It’s the Warren
    0:40:40 Buffett quote of
    0:40:40 invest when there’s
    0:40:41 blood in the water.
    0:40:42 Like you want to be
    0:40:43 coming into metals
    0:40:44 when they are at
    0:40:45 this trough,
    0:40:46 really, where no one
    0:40:47 is investing in them.
    0:40:48 They still have a
    0:40:48 macro long-term
    0:40:49 critical point.
    0:40:50 Lithium is like
    0:40:51 exactly in this
    0:40:52 position right now.
    0:40:52 and that’s why
    0:40:53 we’re focused on
    0:40:53 lithium.
    0:40:54 Copper just has this
    0:40:55 like macro trend that
    0:40:56 is like pretty hard to
    0:40:57 ignore.
    0:40:57 We’re just going to
    0:40:58 need an insane amount
    0:40:58 of copper.
    0:40:59 Copper grids are going
    0:41:01 down globally, which
    0:41:02 means that our ability
    0:41:03 to extract copper from
    0:41:05 those ores is going to
    0:41:05 get harder and harder
    0:41:06 to extract copper from
    0:41:07 those ores.
    0:41:08 And that’s where the
    0:41:09 plant OS side of things
    0:41:09 we have a high degree
    0:41:10 of confidence that
    0:41:11 we’ll be able to step
    0:41:12 in and optimize the
    0:41:13 refining circuits to
    0:41:14 still be able to
    0:41:15 extract copper from
    0:41:15 these lower grade
    0:41:16 ores without seeing
    0:41:17 meaningful kind of
    0:41:18 cost increases.
    0:41:19 So everyone knows
    0:41:20 people here, it
    0:41:21 takes forever to get
    0:41:21 a mine started.
    0:41:22 I don’t know how
    0:41:22 many new greenfield
    0:41:23 mines we’ve developed
    0:41:24 in the United States
    0:41:25 in the last decade.
    0:41:25 Not many.
    0:41:27 Yeah, and I know
    0:41:27 Australia and Canada
    0:41:28 have been able to do
    0:41:29 this faster, which is
    0:41:30 interesting.
    0:41:31 You don’t know Canada
    0:41:32 for moving quickly.
    0:41:33 What are some of the
    0:41:33 bottlenecks there?
    0:41:35 What does America need
    0:41:35 to do to accelerate
    0:41:37 this as one of these
    0:41:38 companies trying to not
    0:41:39 only mine but also
    0:41:40 refine in the United
    0:41:40 States?
    0:41:41 Like what needs to be
    0:41:41 done?
    0:41:42 One thing that folks
    0:41:43 don’t always see is
    0:41:44 actually the permitting
    0:41:45 requirements for
    0:41:46 exploration.
    0:41:47 So if you are
    0:41:48 exploring over on
    0:41:48 federal land, if you’re
    0:41:49 exploring over more than
    0:41:51 a five acre parcel, you
    0:41:52 have to submit like a
    0:41:54 plan of record or plan
    0:41:55 of operations that
    0:41:56 needs to be approved
    0:41:57 by the BLM before you
    0:41:58 can start to expand and
    0:41:58 explore over a larger
    0:41:59 piece of land.
    0:42:01 And so bringing down
    0:42:02 the permitting thresholds
    0:42:02 and the permitting
    0:42:03 burden associated with
    0:42:05 exploring, like that is
    0:42:06 why we have such a
    0:42:08 relatively small rare
    0:42:08 earth resource.
    0:42:09 It’s like it’s not
    0:42:10 because there isn’t
    0:42:11 like the U.S.
    0:42:12 has tons of natural
    0:42:14 resources and the kind
    0:42:15 of like USGS estimate
    0:42:16 for like the U.S.
    0:42:18 reserve on rare is
    0:42:19 just picking on that.
    0:42:20 Like that is tied to
    0:42:21 lack of exploration
    0:42:21 activity, not
    0:42:22 necessarily
    0:42:23 fundamentally like a
    0:42:24 lack of kind of
    0:42:24 geologic presence.
    0:42:25 And we haven’t looked
    0:42:25 for it.
    0:42:26 Yeah, we haven’t
    0:42:26 either we haven’t
    0:42:27 looked for it or it’s
    0:42:28 hard to find in like
    0:42:29 high concentrations that
    0:42:29 are mineable, which
    0:42:31 we’re trying to drop the
    0:42:32 percentage requirement
    0:42:33 that makes something
    0:42:34 economical.
    0:42:35 But it’s also there’s
    0:42:35 just a lot of kind of
    0:42:36 like permitting burden
    0:42:37 to be able to actually
    0:42:38 go and deploy drill rigs
    0:42:39 to go and actually
    0:42:39 explore.
    0:42:41 And then the government
    0:42:42 currently is doing a
    0:42:43 good job of kind of
    0:42:43 highlighting the
    0:42:44 importance of the
    0:42:44 minerals industry.
    0:42:45 And you’re definitely
    0:42:46 seeing a little bit of
    0:42:47 a tone shift over the
    0:42:49 last 20 years that is
    0:42:49 much more supportive.
    0:42:50 There’s way more
    0:42:51 tailwinds when it
    0:42:51 comes to kind of
    0:42:53 like making mining be
    0:42:54 viewed in a more
    0:42:55 positive light and a
    0:42:55 critical light.
    0:42:57 And that will help to
    0:42:58 solve some of the
    0:42:59 talent pool problem
    0:43:00 where people that are
    0:43:01 awesome, they want to
    0:43:02 go build things.
    0:43:03 They don’t want to go
    0:43:04 and work on a project
    0:43:05 that sits around for
    0:43:06 five years and maybe
    0:43:07 gets permitted and
    0:43:08 maybe doesn’t.
    0:43:08 They want to go work
    0:43:10 on hard problems where
    0:43:11 they can see the impact
    0:43:12 of the work that
    0:43:12 they’re doing.
    0:43:13 And so if we’re
    0:43:14 getting in the way of
    0:43:15 enabling projects to
    0:43:16 get built, that is
    0:43:17 actually a major
    0:43:18 deterrent for talent
    0:43:19 because they won’t
    0:43:20 actually see the like
    0:43:20 output of their
    0:43:21 work.
    0:43:22 And then I think the
    0:43:24 permitting requirements
    0:43:26 broadly for going from a
    0:43:27 discovery to an
    0:43:28 operating asset, there
    0:43:29 should be a big focus
    0:43:30 on efficiency in
    0:43:31 reviewing environmental
    0:43:31 permits.
    0:43:32 There should be a big
    0:43:34 focus on streamlining
    0:43:35 those workflows in the
    0:43:36 back and forth between
    0:43:37 field offices and state
    0:43:38 offices from the BLM,
    0:43:39 just focusing on the
    0:43:39 federal side of things.
    0:43:41 Because the way that
    0:43:42 projects get permitted
    0:43:43 right now is you’ll
    0:43:43 throw like your
    0:43:44 environmental assessment
    0:43:46 over the table and
    0:43:47 then they’ll go and
    0:43:47 they’ll divvy it up
    0:43:48 between a whole bunch of
    0:43:49 experts or like kind of
    0:43:50 consultants that they
    0:43:50 bring in to review the
    0:43:52 permit and they’ll get
    0:43:53 back to you eventually
    0:43:53 at some point.
    0:43:55 But there isn’t a lot of
    0:43:56 visibility into like how
    0:43:56 they are progressing with
    0:43:57 reviewing the permit
    0:43:58 applications and
    0:43:59 discussions are getting
    0:44:01 more bilateral and
    0:44:02 again there’s been
    0:44:03 definitely a change
    0:44:04 with the new
    0:44:04 administration where
    0:44:05 there’s a little more
    0:44:06 accountability on the
    0:44:08 permitting offices, but
    0:44:09 there’s tons of room
    0:44:10 for making those
    0:44:11 reviews more efficient.
    0:44:13 And again, LLMs will
    0:44:13 make it more efficient.
    0:44:14 We just need to
    0:44:16 penetrate that side of the
    0:44:17 federal bureaucracy and
    0:44:17 enable people to review
    0:44:18 things faster.
    0:44:19 What else, aside from
    0:44:20 kind of permitting
    0:44:22 efficiency, what are
    0:44:23 other things that if
    0:44:24 you could send a list
    0:44:25 of recommendations to
    0:44:26 the government for what
    0:44:27 they should do to
    0:44:28 support the U.S.
    0:44:29 mining industry, what
    0:44:29 would be your top
    0:44:29 three?
    0:44:31 Yeah, I think supporting
    0:44:31 the demand side is
    0:44:32 probably like the
    0:44:32 biggest lever.
    0:44:33 And if you want to
    0:44:34 mobilize kind of private
    0:44:35 capital into the sector,
    0:44:36 having some level of
    0:44:37 support on the demand
    0:44:38 side is major.
    0:44:39 And so that’s offtake
    0:44:39 agreements with floor
    0:44:41 pricing and they did this
    0:44:41 just now with MP
    0:44:43 materials and that
    0:44:45 ideally provides some
    0:44:45 stability on the
    0:44:46 revenue side of
    0:44:46 things so that
    0:44:48 investors, like there’s
    0:44:49 trillions of dollars of
    0:44:49 capital kind of like
    0:44:51 dry powder just sitting
    0:44:52 around waiting to be
    0:44:52 deployed.
    0:44:53 It has historically kind
    0:44:54 of avoided the mining
    0:44:56 industry because of the
    0:44:57 market price uncertainty.
    0:44:58 And so as soon as you
    0:44:59 provide, it’s a commodity
    0:45:00 cycle and what if you’re
    0:45:01 building at the wrong
    0:45:02 time and the
    0:45:02 infrastructure funds are
    0:45:03 not the ones that are
    0:45:04 here to play, like be
    0:45:05 intelligent about the
    0:45:05 commodity price cycle,
    0:45:06 like they’re looking for
    0:45:07 annuity type returns.
    0:45:09 And so those folks would
    0:45:11 mobilize if there were
    0:45:12 more demand side support
    0:45:13 from the government, either
    0:45:14 providing price floors or
    0:45:16 fixed pricing for
    0:45:16 critical minerals that
    0:45:17 you’re trying to
    0:45:18 incentivize more
    0:45:19 production of in the
    0:45:19 U.S.
    0:45:20 Participating in the
    0:45:21 capital stack is
    0:45:21 important.
    0:45:23 I think lowering the
    0:45:25 hooks or the extra
    0:45:26 burden that comes in with
    0:45:27 receiving government
    0:45:28 funds is important.
    0:45:29 And like some government
    0:45:30 agencies probably have
    0:45:32 more leeway to do that,
    0:45:33 like the DOD obviously
    0:45:34 again just did this big
    0:45:35 deal with MP materials
    0:45:36 and actually went all the
    0:45:37 way to participating in
    0:45:39 the cap table or as an
    0:45:39 equity holder.
    0:45:41 But when you receive
    0:45:42 federal funds from the
    0:45:43 DOE or if you receive
    0:45:45 federal funds from like
    0:45:46 on the debt side of
    0:45:47 things, from XM, it
    0:45:48 comes with some like
    0:45:49 additional burden sometimes.
    0:45:50 If you are building on
    0:45:51 state land and you just
    0:45:52 need a state permit and
    0:45:53 then you bring in
    0:45:55 federal funds, you now
    0:45:55 bump your permitting
    0:45:57 requirement to a federal
    0:45:57 level permit.
    0:45:59 And that’s the NEPA
    0:46:00 process, which again,
    0:46:01 the NEPA process
    0:46:01 wouldn’t be as
    0:46:02 burdensome if there was
    0:46:03 some more efficiency on
    0:46:04 the permitting side of
    0:46:04 things.
    0:46:05 mineral deposits,
    0:46:06 specifically like high
    0:46:07 grade mineral deposits
    0:46:08 don’t obey borders.
    0:46:09 Is there a broader
    0:46:10 international strategy
    0:46:11 here?
    0:46:11 I mean, I would love to
    0:46:12 think we can mine and
    0:46:13 refine everything in the
    0:46:14 United States, but
    0:46:15 obviously there’s a lot
    0:46:16 Australia, Canada, Latin
    0:46:17 America, curious sort of
    0:46:19 what Africa, underwater,
    0:46:20 seafloor.
    0:46:21 What is the overall
    0:46:22 strategy in your mind?
    0:46:24 We’re starting in the U.S.
    0:46:25 because it’s closer to
    0:46:27 home and we’re focused on
    0:46:28 developing a platform that
    0:46:28 we can scale off of.
    0:46:31 But at no point have we
    0:46:32 told ourselves that the U.S.
    0:46:33 is the sole focus.
    0:46:35 Like you have to be able
    0:46:36 to bolster the company to
    0:46:37 be able to operate
    0:46:39 internationally if you want
    0:46:40 to be able to scale beyond
    0:46:41 kind of like the resource
    0:46:41 base that the U.S.
    0:46:42 has like available today.
    0:46:44 And so more exploration is
    0:46:45 going to happen in the U.S.
    0:46:46 We’ll probably discover more
    0:46:47 resources and that pool will
    0:46:48 grow over time of projects
    0:46:49 that we can build in the U.S.
    0:46:50 But yes, we are absolutely
    0:46:52 going to expand overseas
    0:46:53 and underwater maybe.
    0:46:55 When we look back a decade
    0:46:56 from now, what’s the
    0:46:57 single clearest indicator that
    0:46:58 Mariana has achieved what
    0:46:58 it set out to do?
    0:47:01 We won’t be as worried
    0:47:02 about our ability to
    0:47:02 secure the critical
    0:47:04 minerals that we want
    0:47:06 to secure because we
    0:47:07 will have kind of rebuilt
    0:47:10 and established like an
    0:47:12 entity ideally that is
    0:47:13 able to go across borders
    0:47:15 to your point and build
    0:47:16 these projects cost
    0:47:17 effectively, time
    0:47:18 effectively, and
    0:47:19 responsibly ultimately.
    0:47:21 And the reason that we
    0:47:22 are so panicked about it
    0:47:23 right now is because we
    0:47:24 have fundamentally lost
    0:47:25 the ability to build
    0:47:25 large-scale infrastructure
    0:47:27 and we have lost the
    0:47:28 ability to like operate
    0:47:30 complex minerals plants.
    0:47:31 That’s what we have
    0:47:32 lost and we need to
    0:47:33 build that back.
    0:47:34 We want to build 10
    0:47:35 projects in 10 years.
    0:47:36 Those projects will be
    0:47:37 an increasing scale over
    0:47:38 time, but the work will
    0:47:39 not be done in 10 years.
    0:47:41 What I think will have
    0:47:42 demonstrated that the
    0:47:43 10-year mission will
    0:47:44 have been accomplished
    0:47:45 other than building those
    0:47:47 10 plants is that we
    0:47:48 will no longer be as
    0:47:49 worried about like our
    0:47:50 fundamental capability
    0:47:51 to go and build this
    0:47:52 complex infrastructure.
    0:47:53 We will have unlocked it.
    0:47:57 Thanks for listening to
    0:47:59 the A16Z podcast.
    0:48:00 If you enjoyed the
    0:48:01 episode, let us know by
    0:48:02 leaving a review at
    0:48:03 ratethispodcast.com
    0:48:04 slash A16Z.
    0:48:06 We’ve got more great
    0:48:06 conversations coming your
    0:48:07 way.
    0:48:08 See you next time.

    It can take more than 15 years to permit and build a new mine in the United States – yet nearly every modern technology we rely on, from smartphones to fighter jets to AI data centers, depends on a steady supply of critical minerals.

    In this episode, Erik Torenberg is joined in the studio by Turner Caldwell, founder of Mariana Minerals, along with American Dynamism general partner Erin Price-Wright and partner Ryan McEntush.

    Turner spent nearly a decade at Tesla, working his way upstream from factory design to battery materials and mining. Now, he’s building a new kind of mining and refining company – vertically integrated and software-first- designed to meet the demands of our industrial future.

    We get into why the industry is so broken, what it actually takes to turn rocks into usable materials, and how the U.S. can rebuild its capacity to mine, refine, and manufacture the things that matter most.

     

    Timecodes: 

    00:00 Introduction to Critical Minerals

    00:45 The Importance of Mining in Modern Technology

    00:58 Meet Turner Caldwell and Marianna Minerals

    03:02 The Mining and Refining Process

    05:10 Challenges in the Mining Industry

    07:11 Turner’s Journey from Tesla to Marianna

    15:31 The Role of AI and ML in Mining

    22:00 Geopolitical and Talent Pool Dynamics

    23:46 Challenges in Junior Mining Exploration

    25:30 Mariana’s Product and Approach

    25:47 Leveraging Technology in Mining and Construction

    28:29 Optimizing Refining Processes with AI

    37:31 The Importance of Critical Minerals

    41:18 Permitting and Regulatory Challenges

    46:08 Future Strategies and International Expansion

    46:53 Conclusion and Future Outlook

     

    Resources: 

    Find Turner on X :https://x.com/tbc415

    Find Erin on X: https://x.com/espricewright

    Find Ryan on X: https://x.com/rmcentush

     

    Stay Updated: 

    Let us know what you think: https://ratethispodcast.com/a16z

    Find a16z on Twitter: https://twitter.com/a16z

    Find a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16z

    Subscribe on your favorite podcast app: https://a16z.simplecast.com/

    Follow our host: https://x.com/eriktorenberg

    Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures.

  • How to Break Free from Revenge Addiction with James Kimmel Jr.

    AI transcript
    0:00:06 The person who forgives gets almost all of the benefits. It is a misconception, and we can see
    0:00:11 this in these brain scan studies, that the beneficiary of forgiveness is always the victim.
    0:00:18 It’s a hardwired way of self-healing from trauma and pain of the past. The word give in forgiveness
    0:00:23 is not a gift to the perpetrator who caused your harm. You’re giving them nothing. You don’t even
    0:00:29 have to communicate with them to experience these amazing neurological benefits of forgiving
    0:00:36 a grievance inside your own head. So it is this kind of wonder drug or superpower that we have
    0:00:39 that’s often been neglected in our society.
    0:00:50 I’m Guy Kawasaki. This is the Remarkable People podcast, and we go all over the world looking
    0:00:57 for remarkable people to help you be remarkable. And we found another great person. His name is
    0:01:06 James Kimmel Jr. He’s a lawyer, don’t hold that against him, and a behavioral science researcher.
    0:01:15 And he proposes a really radical reinterpretation of the role of revenge in our society. He, in
    0:01:22 this book, he views much of what we call justice-seeking as kind of a dopamine-driven revenge cycle that
    0:01:29 probably causes more problems than it solves and perpetuates violence and suffering.
    0:01:37 His latest book is called The Science of Revenge. It’s a very fascinating book. It utilizes his personal
    0:01:44 survival experiences, which maybe he’ll get into as a youth, plus examples from leaders such as Hitler and
    0:01:52 Stalin and Mao to shed light on the causes of violence in our society. So welcome to the show, James.
    0:01:55 Guy, thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
    0:02:01 I just want to tell you that I went to law school for two weeks and then dropped out. So that’s my extent of
    0:02:05 knowledge of the law. Well, then you were wiser than me, I think.
    0:02:12 Well, your son is entering law school now, so let’s see, second-generation lawyer, right?
    0:02:19 Yeah, but my wife is a transactional lawyer, not a litigator, and my son intends to do the same and
    0:02:25 stay away from litigation, which I refer to as the professional revenge business. So I’m happy that
    0:02:28 he’s going to steer clear of that aspect of the law.
    0:02:33 Well, if litigation is professional revenge, what is criminal law?
    0:02:39 That is also professional revenge seeking. If you’re a prosecutor, right, you’re seeking revenge
    0:02:45 on behalf of society. And if you’re a civil litigator, you’re seeking revenge for money on
    0:02:52 behalf of your clients. And so, yeah, we’re right there with it. And it’s legalized revenge
    0:02:58 that we call justice. That’s the brand name that we call the revenge that we seek. With doctors and
    0:03:04 opioids, if it’s bought on the street, it’s called heroin. But if we prescribe it, it might be called
    0:03:11 Oxycontin. Same kind of drugs, same addictive properties in both instances, just like justice
    0:03:14 and revenge seeking. So we have a problem on our hands.
    0:03:24 So you are literally saying that the desire for revenge and the act of revenge is an addiction,
    0:03:25 like a medical condition.
    0:03:33 Yeah, it can be just like with drugs. So, you know, about 20% of the people in a population who
    0:03:39 experiment with drugs or alcohol actually become addicted to them. And we haven’t actually studied
    0:03:45 this question of just how broadly experiences revenge addiction. But if it follows that pattern,
    0:03:51 it might be the same thing. And we should be clear when we talk about addiction, we’re talking about
    0:03:59 compulsive behavior. We all experience pleasure from revenge fantasies and imagining revenge gratification,
    0:04:05 the way we all experience pleasure from opioids. If anybody takes an opioid, they’re going to experience
    0:04:11 some type of euphoric high. And we’re going to experience that with revenge seeking. When it
    0:04:18 becomes addictive is when we can’t resist the desire to engage in revenge behavior or take a drug,
    0:04:25 despite knowing the negative consequences. That’s when it moves from just a pleasurable experience into
    0:04:27 something that’s more pathological.
    0:04:37 And is one of your goals to get the diagnostic and statistical manual to recognize this as a medical
    0:04:38 condition?
    0:04:44 Yes, absolutely. And we have a lot of evidence now. We have neuroscience evidence, we have behavioral
    0:04:53 evidence, and we have world history evidence backing up this idea that humanity throughout centuries now
    0:05:01 in thousands of years has been experiencing revenge addictive moments, either in our individual lives or
    0:05:08 in our corporate lives at population scale. We know that revenge seeking is the primary motivation for
    0:05:15 almost all forms of human violence, beginning with bullying and youth violence, up through intimate partner
    0:05:23 violence, street and gang violence, extremism, terrorism, genocide, war, all up and down the ladder
    0:05:29 of severity. We know that revenge is the primary motivation for that. And then the question becomes
    0:05:36 is, well, why do we seek revenge at all? And over the last 20 years, neuroscientists have been able to
    0:05:38 solve that question.
    0:05:46 And the fact that it is not yet recognized in the DSM, does that pose like real problems? Or is it just a
    0:05:47 kind of a formality?
    0:05:53 Oh, it poses real problems. It’s not a surprise that it isn’t recognized there yet.
    0:06:02 Because the science that is able to show us why we want revenge has only emerged in, as I say,
    0:06:10 the last 20 years. And so this is relatively new science. And the DSM isn’t about adding new scientific
    0:06:16 discoveries as quickly as possible. The people who create that, the American Psychiatric Association,
    0:06:23 take their time and want to make sure they’re right before they put a diagnosis into the DSM. But I think
    0:06:30 the time has come now to seriously consider and make that move and that we need it. Because by seeing
    0:06:37 revenge seeking as an addictive process, and we can get into how and why and the neuroscience in a moment,
    0:06:43 But by seeing it that way, this opens up for the first time really in human history, the opportunity
    0:06:49 to prevent and treat violence using public health methods of prevention and treatment,
    0:06:56 rather than relying, as we’ve been for, I don’t know, the last 5,000 years, solely on the threat of
    0:07:01 punishment and criminal justice systems, which have been around for a long time. But it seems like this is
    0:07:08 about as good as they get. We still have maybe the same 20% of the people that become addicted to drugs
    0:07:15 and alcohol, about 20% of people throughout their lifetimes seem to have contact with the criminal
    0:07:24 justice system, basically being charged. And it’s time to see the revenge desire as an addictive process.
    0:07:30 And when we do, we get to open up our entire addiction prevention and treatment toolkit that we’ve
    0:07:38 developed over the last decades, and employ that to focus on violence and compulsive revenge seeking,
    0:07:46 in order to add to not replace, but add to the criminal justice system, so that we can really take that next
    0:07:54 level step in minimizing violence and reducing it. But obviously, revenge has been around for a long time,
    0:07:58 interesting. Is there any benefit? Does it serve any purpose?
    0:08:08 The leading theory from an evolutionary perspective on why humans derive pleasure from revenge is that this
    0:08:16 probably started in the Pleistocene epic, maybe as early as the Ice Age, and maybe even earlier than that.
    0:08:24 But the idea is, and like I said, this is the leading theory, is that as humans began to form societies and
    0:08:31 live in groups, they needed a way, and this is an adaptive strategy at first, to cause people in
    0:08:43 a way that they’re going to be in society. And if you’re going to be in a way to live in a way.
    0:08:49 And you don’t get to come and take those from me. And if you do, there will be a negative consequence
    0:08:57 consequence for that. And so in that way, revenge seeking has a deterrent effect, or at least we think
    0:09:04 it does. And it does seem to have some deterrent effect. And it did when we’re trying to deter activities
    0:09:14 that can frustrate or stop our ability to survive and or procreate. So revenge used purely for those
    0:09:21 types of adaptive strategies makes sense. Revenge, on the other hand, the way it’s often used in modern
    0:09:30 society is to avenge injuries to our egos, our sense of self-identity, self-respect. There are
    0:09:36 psychological makeup and the way we want to project and see ourselves in the world. And when revenge is used
    0:09:44 in that context, it becomes less adaptive. And more importantly, revenge, although it has this
    0:09:53 deterrent effect to some degree, it also has the primary motivational effect, as I just mentioned
    0:10:00 earlier, of motivating almost every form of human violence. It’s pretty hard to make a good case that
    0:10:06 revenge is the best strategy for stopping violence when it is the number one reason why people commit it.
    0:10:15 That is a real disconnect. And so there are probably are better ways of creating deterrence to violence
    0:10:21 seeking that’s motivated by revenge desire. And that’s what I argue in the book. And that’s by targeting the
    0:10:29 the desire itself inside the brain, where it forms. And if we focus there, we can achieve this next level
    0:10:36 violence reduction by deterring violence at that level. And not only with the threat of punishment,
    0:10:44 which that threat of punishment is why we almost in all cases are engaging in violent behavior in the
    0:10:50 first place, because we experience grievances throughout our lives on an almost daily, hourly basis,
    0:10:57 small and large. And what we can see neurologically now inside our brains is that when you experience a
    0:11:04 grievance, which is a real or imagined sense of having been wronged or mistreated or shamed or humiliated,
    0:11:10 that pain activates the pain network inside your brain, the anterior insula, the brain doesn’t like
    0:11:16 pain and wants to compensate with a nice dose of pleasure. And the first thing it does is activate the
    0:11:23 pleasure and reward circuitry that activates for addiction. And we start ruminating on fantasizing
    0:11:30 about and potentially engaging in revenge acts. So you may consider this a little bit off the wall,
    0:11:38 but we kind of have an off the wall podcast. So let’s say you go to a WNBA game and you see the star
    0:11:46 get poked in her eye. Then you see a few plays later, someone else on our team takes down the person who
    0:11:53 poked your star in the eye. That was an act of revenge. It was justice. It was grievance. Do you
    0:12:00 look at that and you say, all right, in the context of the WNBA or athletics, that was justified. You
    0:12:07 have to do that. Or would you pull Sophie Cunningham aside and say, let me help you deal with your
    0:12:15 addiction, addiction to revenge. Revenge is really prevalent in sport and sports have a lot of rules
    0:12:22 and controls to maintain and eliminate most forms of violence. But that form of violence that you just
    0:12:29 described, let’s say a takedown, right? Which is in direct violation of the rules that we have. So is it
    0:12:35 really necessary? If it’s retaliation because you’ve just poked my teammate in the eye, that’s something that
    0:12:41 happened in the past. You poked my teammate in the eye sometime earlier in the game or maybe in a prior
    0:12:48 game even. And now you’re going to retaliate and inflict pain upon that person who did that. That’s
    0:12:52 punishing them for wrongs of the past. That’s to be distinguished. And I distinguish carefully in the
    0:13:01 book between revenge seeking for past wrongs versus self-defense to prevent present and future threats of
    0:13:12 harm. If, in your example, the player is now going to have a physical altercation because they have a
    0:13:16 reason to believe that there’s going to be another eye poke that’s coming right around the corner and
    0:13:22 it’s like, nope, not this time. I’m going to stop you physically. That’s self-defense. That’s not revenge
    0:13:29 seeking. And that would be fight or flight type of behavior rather than revenge seeking. And so it makes
    0:13:36 sense to do it there. But this idea of self punishment, the first player who poked the original
    0:13:42 player in the eye, if they did that out of their own sense of grievance, they used their desire for
    0:13:47 revenge to do the original eye poke. And now we’ve got another player who’s using their grievance and
    0:13:56 desire for revenge to take that person down. These are not solid adaptive behaviors. Survival is not
    0:14:03 at risk. And we have a set of rules and the officials are there to administer those rules.
    0:14:08 And you have a coach there that can advocate for the administration of the rules and perhaps pulling
    0:14:14 that player out of the game. So these are really bad idea behaviors because if the takedown happens,
    0:14:20 that player who did the takedown, as we all know from being sports spectators is usually the one
    0:14:26 that’s caught and usually the one that’s penalized by the ref and then has to go forward and living with
    0:14:31 that either as, wow, I’m a beast and I take other players down and that may have negative consequences
    0:14:37 on their career. Usually we see in studies, revenge seeking doesn’t actually make us feel good for
    0:14:43 long. It’s a temporary high, just like drugs. We feel great in the moment and for a short time after,
    0:14:49 and then we end up feeling worse, angrier. We worry about retaliation back against us. So we’re filled
    0:14:54 with anxiety. So there are a lot of negative consequences to revenge seeking for everybody
    0:14:54 involved.
    0:15:04 So you are not saying that there is no such thing as healthy anger or justified grievance or justified
    0:15:09 indignation. It’s about when things spiral out of control.
    0:15:14 Yeah. For addictive behavior, it’s about that compulsion. It’s about the, I have this desire
    0:15:20 to retaliate. And despite knowing that I’m going to suffer negative consequences or me and other
    0:15:26 people are going to suffer many negative consequences. And with revenge seeking, negative consequences are
    0:15:33 built in. Revenge means inflicting pain on another person because you feel wrong. If you can’t control
    0:15:41 that, then you might be heading into or already involved with a compulsive revenge seeking disorder.
    0:15:48 And you could and should receive some form of either self-help or professional treatment if it’s gotten that
    0:15:56 far before it begins to take over your life. And we have just innumerable examples throughout human
    0:16:03 history and modern society of people for whom this revenge seeking has taken over their lives.
    0:16:09 You can just essentially conclude that every person who’s in jail for a violent crime
    0:16:15 is almost in all instances, a revenge addict who could not control their desire to retaliate,
    0:16:20 and they’re now in prison for that. And then we look at their victims, and we look at their victims’
    0:16:27 families, and we look at the families of the people who are in jail. The harms are enormous. The costs
    0:16:37 to society are just off the charts. And yet, we’ve never looked at, scientifically, until the last 20 years,
    0:16:43 what happens inside the brain and why we do this at all. Because I’m going to suggest, if somebody pokes you
    0:16:51 in the eye, you might want to have a bowl of ice cream. We could have been adaptively, right? We could have been
    0:16:57 adaptively evolved so that when we get an eye pain, we want some ice cream or a nap or we want a hug.
    0:17:03 But that’s not what we want. We want the pain of the person who hit us in the eye or their proxy,
    0:17:08 and we want them to know that their new pain is because of what they did to us five minutes ago.
    0:17:18 Is there a way to remove the sweetness from revenge to, you know, I’d rather have ice cream than this.
    0:17:21 How do you make revenge less attractive?
    0:17:28 Yeah, that’s a great question. And there’s probably no way to make revenge less sweet,
    0:17:35 because this is a biologically derived, evolved, adaptive experience that we all have when we’ve
    0:17:41 been wrong, that revenge will feel temporarily good, just as it is that opioids will always give us this
    0:17:48 euphoria and it will always feel good. But there are ways to control the desire for it and to recover
    0:17:56 from the addictive compulsive process of revenge seeking. And those include all of the addiction
    0:18:02 strategies that we know that are effective for drugs and alcohol. Addiction, things like cognitive
    0:18:09 behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, counseling, NA, maybe RA for revenge addicts,
    0:18:18 anonymous. Ultimately, anti-craving drugs and medications like naltroxone and even GLP-1 anti-craving
    0:18:24 drugs that have been shown to be effective for food are now being studied for other addictions and may be
    0:18:32 effective in reducing the cravings for revenge seeking. But the great news in this entire story
    0:18:39 is the neuroscience of forgiveness is really incredible. It’s almost seems like it’s miraculous.
    0:18:46 Just as we’ve been hardwired to want revenge when someone harms us, we also have been hardwired to forgive
    0:18:53 and reverse the process and actually end the pain and the cravings on the spot. And that’s what forgiveness
    0:19:00 does. And we can see this in brain scans of people who have a grievance and are asked to simply imagine
    0:19:07 forgiving it. And what that shows us inside the brain scan is that pain network part of the brain that activated for the
    0:19:14 grievance, the anterior insula. When you simply imagine forgiveness, even without telling the person who
    0:19:19 wronged you that you’re forgiving them, that stops that area of the brain. It shuts down the pain
    0:19:26 rather than just giving you a quick dopamine hit. It also shuts down the pleasure and reward circuitry of
    0:19:32 addiction so you’re no longer craving retaliation and revenge. And then the last thing it does is it reactivates
    0:19:39 your prefrontal cortex. That’s your self-control and executive function circuitry so that you’re able to
    0:19:45 make better cost benefit decisions. And you find when you’re in that state that in almost all cases, it’s
    0:19:52 better in your own self-interest, just your self-interest to not seek revenge. It’s better to forgive if you want
    0:19:58 the pain of the pain of the past to go away and you don’t want it to infect and harm your present and your future.
    0:20:06 So just to be clear, the person who forgives gets as much value as the person who receives the
    0:20:08 forgiveness. Is that what you’re saying?
    0:20:13 It’s even bigger than that. It’s even bigger than that. The person who forgives gets almost all of the
    0:20:20 benefits. It is a misconception, and we can see this now neurologically for sure in these brain scan
    0:20:28 studies, that the beneficiary of forgiveness is always the victim. It’s a hardwired way of self-healing
    0:20:36 from trauma and pain of the past. The word give in forgiveness is not a gift to the perpetrator who
    0:20:40 caused your harm. You’re giving them nothing. You don’t even have to communicate with them to
    0:20:47 experience these amazing neurological benefits of forgiving a grievance inside your own head.
    0:20:55 So it is this kind of wonder drug or superpower that we have that’s often been neglected. Our society,
    0:21:01 particularly our society and a paternalistic society, wants to think of forgiveness as some form of
    0:21:08 weakness or something that you’re doing to reward the person who just slapped you in the face with an act of
    0:21:16 kindness. And it’s not that at all. It’s a gift to yourself to heal yourself from the trauma and pain of the
    0:21:16 past.
    0:21:25 And would it be accurate to say that we don’t hear about these mass forgivers? We hear about mass murderers.
    0:21:32 So, you know, is it because bad news sells and you hear about Mao and Stalin and Hitler,
    0:21:36 but you don’t hear about the people who are mass forgivers?
    0:21:44 That’s exactly the case. And there are mass forgivers everywhere. And I meet them more and more now as a
    0:21:51 result of the book. I’ll find people who say most of their lives, they’ve had this insight or intuition
    0:21:59 that forgiving and moving on as fast as possible is the way to become successful in your life. It’s the way to
    0:22:06 heal and move forward and not allow the bad things that happened to you in the past to infect and destroy
    0:22:12 your present and your future. So there are some people, and I haven’t had the chance to study them,
    0:22:19 who say they don’t even think about revenge when they’ve been wrong. And I tend to view those types of
    0:22:25 claims with a little bit of skepticism because I know from other studies that revenge seeking has been
    0:22:33 found in all societies around the world and that it is an evolved strategy. And so it seems unlikely that
    0:22:42 people derive no pleasure from revenge seeking, but they may have developed such a sense of control and
    0:22:48 wisdom that they just don’t want any part of that great feeling, that temporary high that only leads
    0:22:54 to disaster, that they just don’t allow themselves to think about it at all when they’ve been wrong.
    0:23:00 And that’s a very powerful and good strategy. What we have, Guy, now are neuroscience evidence that
    0:23:06 supports the ancient forgiveness teachings of people like Jesus and the Buddha, who we think of it as a
    0:23:12 spiritual construct, but it’s really not. It can be, and it’s fine that it is a spiritual construct, but
    0:23:19 it really has a neurological basis inside of our brains and inside of science. And it’s great now,
    0:23:26 just really in the last 10 or so years, to be able to bring this out to the public and show people
    0:23:38 that it has all of these benefits for the victim, not the perpetrator.
    0:23:47 Now, just to be clear, this is a fine point here. It is one thing to say, let’s say somebody does
    0:23:53 something to you. One reaction could be, I’m not going to let it bother me. I’m not going to think about it.
    0:23:59 It’s not going to even enter into my consciousness anymore. That’s one attitude. The other attitude is,
    0:24:08 I understand what they did, but I am actively forgiving, which is a decision which is different
    0:24:12 than ignoring. So are you saying either or one is better than the other?
    0:24:18 Researchers have identified kind of two types of forgiveness. There’s decisional forgiveness, as you
    0:24:24 actually just described, which is, I’m going to make a kind of a tactical decision to forgive this
    0:24:31 wrong, for my own benefit, for my own self benefit. And it’s a great decision. And that’s usually the
    0:24:37 decision that’s the easiest to arrive at, because you’re still looking at your own self interest.
    0:24:41 And you’re clear in your own mind, you’re not giving a gift to the person who wronged you. You’re not in
    0:24:47 any way condoning what they’ve done. You’re not endorsing what they’ve done. You’re still holding
    0:24:53 on to the idea that what they’ve done is potentially a very terrible wrong. And you’re not going to
    0:24:59 budge on that. And nor do you have to, nor are you giving away your right to self-defense. If let’s say
    0:25:04 you’re in a toxic relationship, where you’re repeatedly being harmed by someone, and you decide,
    0:25:10 I’m going to leave that relationship now, in order to protect myself, even though I may forgive
    0:25:15 everything that happened in the past, but I’m going to stop that behavior from continuing into the future.
    0:25:21 So that’s kind of decisional forgiveness. And it activates a different set of structures in the brain.
    0:25:26 That’s versus what some researchers have identified as emotional forgiveness,
    0:25:33 where an additional thing occurs in that point. And what occurs is humans are very, very adept at
    0:25:40 empathizing with other people. And we have this psychologist think of the ability to imagine what’s
    0:25:46 going on in other people’s heads. We call that theory of mind. And humans are good at doing that,
    0:25:52 imagining what another person might’ve been thinking about. And through a process of analyzing
    0:25:58 what happened during the grievance, and also imagining what the other person, the perpetrator,
    0:26:05 might have been thinking or going through themselves. Some people can come to an emotional forgiveness
    0:26:13 in which they essentially reevaluate and recreate the entire incident, the entire grievance, the entire
    0:26:20 trauma, in a new light in which we can see it as less of a trauma than we once believed it was.
    0:26:25 So that’s emotional forgiveness. And it’s not required. Decisional forgiveness gets you,
    0:26:32 you know, 90% of the way. Emotional forgiveness can put you in a really better place if you can
    0:26:40 see what happened to you and your own role in it, perhaps. And the reasons why the person wronged you
    0:26:48 in a new and more either a revised light in which it wasn’t as bad as you thought, or maybe it might have
    0:26:55 been excusable because of X, whatever the X might be. So there are these two types of forgiveness that
    0:27:04 researchers talk about. Now, do you have a James Kimmel, Jr.? Like, these are the steps to catalyze forgiveness.
    0:27:13 I do. So I created about 20 years ago. This is drawing on my legal practice. As I said, I was a litigator.
    0:27:22 And one of the things that I found that was useful in the litigation revenge seeking process is that a trial,
    0:27:28 the trials that we all know from television or real life experience or movies, but this idea of there
    0:27:36 being a tribunal of an impartial judge and jury, that there’s this experience in which we testify and
    0:27:42 explain what happened to us as victims and the defendants given an opportunity to explain their
    0:27:49 side of the story and testify to that. And then we have, you know, did it happen or not? We have this
    0:27:55 opportunity to hold the defendant accountable if that’s what is being decided and to punish,
    0:28:01 imagine at least punishing the defendant for what they’ve done wrong. So that’s what the judge does.
    0:28:08 And then we move to the warden phase of these trials at the prison or, you know, up into and
    0:28:14 including an executioner. But we move to a phase in which the defendant is punished, which is our
    0:28:22 gratification socially and individually of the desire for revenge. In those steps, we have two actually
    0:28:29 pretty therapeutic things happening. One is we get to be heard and trauma researchers and experts will say
    0:28:36 that the psychological pain that we experience from grievances, whether they’re physical or only in the
    0:28:45 brain, in order to relieve that, people need to be heard. There’s a need to have someone hear our pain
    0:28:51 story and acknowledge, yes, this happened and I’m sorry. And that was terrible for you. And we get it.
    0:28:58 And the other thing people need in addition to being heard is this ability to hold the person who did it
    0:29:04 accountable. And accountability in this sense doesn’t mean we often think it means revenge itself, but it
    0:29:11 doesn’t need to, nor should it. It should mean we’ve labeled who did the wrong. We’ve made an account,
    0:29:16 like an accountant tracking books. An accountant only decides where the money went, how it went.
    0:29:22 Accountants don’t make a judgments on the worth of that money spent expenditure or the money coming in.
    0:29:28 They just account for what happened. And that accountability is really important in healing
    0:29:36 from trauma as well. So I created this system called the non-justice system, which goes to that first part,
    0:29:41 decisional forgiveness and says, if you can’t forgive, and most people find it difficult at first,
    0:29:49 what you could practice is this idea of non-justice. And non-justice is not injustice, which is unfairness.
    0:29:56 Non-justice means to abstain from seeking justice in the form of revenge, just as non-violence means to
    0:30:02 abstain from seeking violence or perpetrating an act of violence. So the non-justice system uses those
    0:30:09 four steps of the criminal trial, but allows a person using it to put the courtroom inside their head
    0:30:14 where it needs to be, because we’re always talking about wrongs of the past. So you’ve got a courtroom of the mind,
    0:30:20 and it’s a role play in which you play all of the roles. So you don’t need a lawyer, you don’t need a judge,
    0:30:26 because you’re the lawyer, you’re the judge, and you don’t need witnesses because you play not only yourself as victim,
    0:30:32 but you play the defendant and imagine what the defendant would testify to in their own defense.
    0:30:38 You come up with your own verdict, purely on your own as judge, and then you hand down a sentence,
    0:30:43 which can be anything you want inside your head. It doesn’t have to be something that a court of law would hand down.
    0:30:49 And then if you’ve created a sentence of punishment, you’re now the warden, and you have to experience
    0:30:54 and imagine what it would be like to administer that punishment, which allows you to safely release
    0:31:01 in your imagination these really powerful revenge cravings, like methadone for a revenge addict.
    0:31:06 I added one last step. And the fifth and final step, which is not part of normal criminal trials,
    0:31:14 is you become the judge of your own life. And you look back on the trial, and you’re asked to clarify in
    0:31:21 your mind, did the wrong that you’ve put somebody on trial for just now, is that even something that’s
    0:31:27 happening in the real world? Is the defendant here? Did the wrong happen in a way that anybody on the
    0:31:34 planet can experience with their own senses? And the answer is no. The wrongs of the past are only thought
    0:31:40 formation memories that are in our heads. And we control what’s going on in our heads. And once you’ve
    0:31:46 decided that, you’re then given the opportunity to imagine what it might feel like to forgive. Just imagine
    0:31:53 it. You don’t have to forgive, but you can just imagine what would that feel like if I forgave. And when I ask
    0:31:58 people this, and your listeners can experiment with this at any time when it’s safe to close your eyes,
    0:32:04 just think of a grievance that you have in your life, and there’s probably many, many. And imagine
    0:32:10 for a second what it would feel like to just forgive that. What people invariably say back is that they
    0:32:18 would feel relief. They would feel this instant feeling of relief where the pain has gone away and the
    0:32:25 desire to retaliate, which is this revenge rumination is suddenly gone. And usually folks at that stage
    0:32:31 like that feeling because it’s even better than the revenge high, because it’s this sense of peace and
    0:32:38 calm and their ability to move forward with their lives without dragging the wrongs of the past forward
    0:32:45 is so enticing that they want that again and again. And what I say at that point is then start forgiving
    0:32:51 again and again. Every time that memory reoccurs, it’s a practice. You do it until the pain of the
    0:32:58 wrong of the past and the grievance is no longer affecting your present and your future. And at that point,
    0:33:06 you move on. I just want to point out to our listeners that you have made this into a website.
    0:33:11 So there’s actually a process that you can go through this non-justice system, right?
    0:33:16 It’s a web app. So it’s not on the app stores. It’s a web app. And if you want to try it,
    0:33:21 it’s an audio version of what I just said. The full version, the written version is in my book,
    0:33:27 The Science of Revenge. But the audio version is free. There’s not even an in-app purchase for it.
    0:33:31 You just go there and you can download from miraclecourt.com. All one word,
    0:33:38 miraclecourt.com. And you can try it. It’s my voice leading you through the five steps of a
    0:33:44 non-justice system or miracle court trial. I have to admit that after reading your book,
    0:33:53 the word justice has taken on a very negative connotation in my mind. At least the way I understood
    0:34:01 justice, it’s like a nice way of saying revenge, right? Justice is in the eye of the beholder, right?
    0:34:07 As humans and particularly in American society, we have two opposite meanings for the word justice.
    0:34:16 And this allows us to perpetrate all sorts of bad things and bad ideas. So justice in the social justice
    0:34:23 sense is a very elevated term. We think of that as equity and fairness and treating all people equally.
    0:34:31 And we think of people who are truly just as people like maybe Jesus or Martin Luther King or Gandhi,
    0:34:39 some of our most elevated human beings that we can imagine. And this is a great and noble version of
    0:34:45 justice. And if that’s all it meant, justice would be fine and would have no negative connotation.
    0:34:51 But that’s not only what it means. As a matter of fact, more often or just as often at worst,
    0:34:59 or at best, I should say, just as often, we use the word justice to mean revenge, retaliation and payback.
    0:35:05 So, for instance, an example I talk about in the book at some length is after the 9/11 attacks,
    0:35:11 when President Bush came out to the country and said, “We’re going to bring the terrorists to justice.”
    0:35:18 Now, we all know just by hearing that sentence that he didn’t mean bringing terrorists to fairness
    0:35:25 and equity and love. He meant we’re going to go and we’re going to kill them. We’re going to go
    0:35:32 and get justice in the form of revenge. Why didn’t he use the word revenge? Why do we often all use the
    0:35:38 word justice? Because by using the word justice, we do this bait and switch inside our own minds and
    0:35:46 inside the minds of our listeners, in which we suddenly sanctify with this noble version of justice,
    0:35:54 our worst behaviors. When Osama bin Laden convinced terrorists to fly planes into the world trade towers,
    0:36:01 they were doing it for justice, their own version of justice. And that was not fairness or equity.
    0:36:09 It was revenge seeking for their perceived grievances against America. And when we sent our troops to the
    0:36:16 Middle East and ended up killing, I don’t know, some 800,000 people over the course of the Iraq and
    0:36:24 Afghanistan wars and many multi-trillions of dollars spent. We weren’t doing fairness and equity. We were
    0:36:31 doing revenge seeking against the people that we believed had wronged us and their proxies. And we did
    0:36:39 it very bigly. And we would not likely have authorized that if we had thought it was just coarse revenge
    0:36:45 seeking. But if we can call it justice, which kind of ennobles it for us. And it’s almost as if God is
    0:36:51 sanctioning our behavior the way Osama bin Laden was saying, “Go get justice. God wants you to kill the
    0:36:57 infidels.” Okay, so we’ll go do it as long as God says it’s okay. But that is a very slippery slope. And
    0:37:04 that’s what the word justice does. And that’s why I say that in my legal career, I came to experience
    0:37:14 justice as the brand name that we use to put on our retaliatory acts of litigation and retaliatory
    0:37:21 behaviors to make it seem much more noble than it really is. Up next on Remarkable People.
    0:37:26 One night, my family and I, we were asleep. It was very late at night. And we were awakened to the
    0:37:31 sound of a gunshot. And we looked around the house and I saw this pickup truck driving away,
    0:37:36 a truck owned by one of the guys who had been bullying me. We checked the house. We didn’t
    0:37:40 see any damage and thought everything was good. Maybe they were just a spotlighting deer.
    0:37:47 The next morning when I woke up, one of my jobs before school was to feed and water our animals,
    0:37:54 including this sweet beagle, a hunting dog that we had, whose name was Paula. And when I went to her pen,
    0:37:59 I found her lying dead with a bullet hole in her head.
    0:38:08 Do you want to be more remarkable? One way to do it is to spend three days with the boldest
    0:38:14 builders in business. I’m Jeff Berman, host of Masters of Scale, inviting you to join us at this
    0:38:20 year’s Masters of Scale Summit, October 7th to 9th in San Francisco. You’ll hear from visionaries
    0:38:26 like Chobani’s Hamdi Ulukaya, celebrity chef David Chang, Patagonia’s Ryan Gellert, promises Phaedra
    0:38:34 Ellis Lampkins, and many, many more. Apply to attend at mastersofscale.com/remarkable. That’s
    0:38:39 mastersofscale.com/remarkable. And Guy Kawasaki will be there too.
    0:38:47 Become a little more remarkable with each episode of Remarkable People. It’s found on Apple Podcasts
    0:38:54 or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Welcome back to Remarkable People with Guy Kawasaki.
    0:39:04 Now, what if somebody pushes back and says, well, if there wasn’t this reaction, we would have no
    0:39:11 prevention from it happening again. Today, 2025, we could point to a lot of places in the world where
    0:39:16 people are saying we’re doing this because we need to teach them a lesson so they never do it again.
    0:39:22 Sure. Well, two answers there. First, I’m very clear in the book, and I mentioned this before,
    0:39:30 I’m very clear between self-defense and preventing real threats of future harm, which is a fight or
    0:39:36 flight instinct, and we need to do it to survive. It’s an adaptive strategy. And that versus revenge
    0:39:43 seeking, which is merely trying to punish people for wrongs of the past, largely to feel this gratifying
    0:39:52 experience of having gotten revenge or gotten justice in the form of revenge or retaliation or payback.
    0:39:58 Those types of feelings that we have. And the focus of this research in the book is on
    0:40:04 revenge seeking and justice in the form of revenge, not self-defense. So that’s the first thing.
    0:40:12 And the second thing that I explain in the book is that that form of retaliation as a deterrent for future
    0:40:21 harm, as we talked about earlier, Guy, is very weak and ineffective in stopping future wrongs. We want it to be,
    0:40:28 and believe often that it’s going to be this cure all. If I just come down on, or we use the example of the
    0:40:34 basketball player. If I just take her out, she’ll never poke anybody in the eye again, especially not
    0:40:41 on my team. It doesn’t often work. It mostly doesn’t. There’s going to be a new desire for revenge by the
    0:40:47 original eye poker. And there’s probably going to be another instance of eye poking, revenge seeking
    0:40:52 down the line. And this happens throughout our lives. It happens in our intimate partner relationships. It
    0:40:58 happens between children and their parents. It happens between children on playgrounds and bullies.
    0:41:06 It happens in workplaces with workplace grievances and sabotage. We always think, ah, I need to,
    0:41:14 I have to, like the world is counting on me to punish this person in order to prevent them from doing the
    0:41:19 wrong again. But as I said, it is the primary motivation for why the wrong occurred in the first
    0:41:25 place. Almost in all cases, perpetrators see themselves as victims seeking justice in the
    0:41:31 form of revenge. That’s why it’s the primary motivation for almost all forms of violence and
    0:41:38 intentionally inflicted human suffering. So merely feeding more fuel, uh, revenge fuel into the system
    0:41:43 is a weak at best deterrent. And there are better strategies for that.
    0:41:52 Okay. Which is what? So George W. Bush calls you up on 9/12 2001 and says, James, what should I do?
    0:41:55 I’m thinking of launching an attack. What should I do?
    0:42:01 Here’s what I thought on 9/12 that ought to be done. And it’s what I would tell him to this day.
    0:42:08 Bin Laden and his associates do present because they’ve committed to this.
    0:42:12 They’ve proven that they’ll do it and they’ve said there will continue their attacks.
    0:42:21 So they do present a serious imminent threat of harm to the country and the people of this nation.
    0:42:28 And so therefore, as an act of self-defense, they need to be taken out, unfortunately.
    0:42:36 That’s in contrast to hunting people down for 10 years after the wrong happened, when nothing
    0:42:42 further has occurred and annihilating, destroying hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom
    0:42:50 had nothing to do with it, just to gratify our desire for revenge. So a targeted strike upon the
    0:42:57 people who present the threat makes sense as a survival strategy for America. Seeking revenge
    0:43:01 endlessly for a decade, that should have been shut down long before that.
    0:43:08 So what happens if it’s Hamas and they’re completely embedded in a civilian population?
    0:43:09 Then what do you do?
    0:43:15 Well, it’s kind of the same situation. It’s not just about, and I see your point. Your point is,
    0:43:21 maybe you shouldn’t hurt innocent people in your revenge seeking. And so if Hamas is in a civilian
    0:43:29 population, there’s nothing you can do. That’s not true. But if your goal is purely self-defense and not
    0:43:35 retaliation, then the way you go about identifying the threat and eliminating it is much different.
    0:43:40 And you’re going to be much more surgical about it. And you’re going to limit your behavior
    0:43:47 to, like I said, eliminating the specific threat. And you’re not going to go beyond that and call it
    0:43:54 a self-defense when you’re destroying tens of thousands of other people in the process,
    0:44:00 or hundreds of thousands is in the case of America after 9/11. So it’s the revenge seeking,
    0:44:06 and it’s a very slippery slope. We will be eager, our leaders and all of us individually will be
    0:44:13 eager to say, “Oh, well, you know, I’m just acting in self-defense here, even though the threat is no
    0:44:19 longer present.” And it’s a slippery slope that we all need to be aware of. We can focus on, if the threat’s
    0:44:24 gone, that should be the end of our attack. Otherwise we’re merely retaliating.
    0:44:31 So how can somebody self-diagnose and say, “You know what? I’m going off the deep end. Revenge
    0:44:37 has become an addiction. What are the warning signs? And then what do I do when I see this happening to
    0:44:45 myself? Yeah. The primary warning sign for compulsive revenge seeking would be feeling grievances in your
    0:44:54 life and feeling that desire to retaliate and not being able to control it despite the negative consequences
    0:45:01 that you’re aware of that will occur. If you’re not able to control that at that point, then you might be
    0:45:09 dealing with something that looks very similar to an addiction. If on top of that, you try to cut down
    0:45:16 on that type of behavior and you’re unable to do so, or you’re continually doing it despite the harm that
    0:45:24 it causes to yourself, your family members, your community, other people, these are signs of an addictive
    0:45:30 process. And I have a different website, not the miraclecourt.com website, but the savingcain.org website.
    0:45:39 So that’s saving, C-A-I-N, like Cain and Able Cain. Savingcain.org is a website that has resources for
    0:45:45 people who might be planning a mass killing. And it’s modeled on a suicide prevention website. So it gives
    0:45:52 resources to people who find themselves caught up in these desires to retaliate, which is almost always the
    0:45:57 case with mass shootings, is that there are a lot of grievances, there’s a lot of desire for revenge,
    0:46:03 and there’s a conviction in the person’s mind. Just as you said, how can I let this go? I can’t let this
    0:46:08 go on. I have to start killing people. They’ll just keep harming me. That is a pathological thought
    0:46:14 process in your head if you’re thinking about killing a large number of people, or any people for that
    0:46:20 matter, under those circumstances. And so on that website, I have, in addition to some of the things I just
    0:46:25 described, the idea of how to be aware of and know the warning signs of a revenge attack,
    0:46:31 which should be treated as a medical emergency, just like a heart attack. And when you see signs
    0:46:36 like constant rumination and thinking about the grievance and not willing to let it go,
    0:46:42 not being able to forgive, starting to think about actual physical violence to harm either the person
    0:46:47 who wronged you or their proxies, because it can be anybody. It doesn’t have to be the person who
    0:46:53 who wronged you. Starting to think about, and if people are expressing targeting, like who the target
    0:47:01 might be, a day in time, acquiring weapons. These things all come from FBI and secret service studies
    0:47:06 of mass shooters. And they’re all in on that webpage. When you start to see those things,
    0:47:14 that should become an instantaneous 911 or 988 call, because you’re starting to see enough evidence
    0:47:21 that there might be a compulsive act of violence on the near-term horizon. And that person needs help
    0:47:26 before it occurs. If they get it before it occurs, they’re not a murderer. If it comes too late, they’re
    0:47:31 a murderer and there are people dead. So it’d be a good idea for all of us to learn those warning signs.
    0:47:39 In a sense, you opened the book up with where you almost became a murderer, right? But you pulled
    0:47:45 yourself back from the edge. I did. And you’re referring there to this time in my life when I was
    0:47:52 a teenager in which I was pretty severely bullied by a group of guys that I actually wanted to befriend.
    0:47:57 They were guys who lived on neighboring farms. I was raised in the country. But they didn’t want
    0:48:03 any part of me and what I was about, despite my efforts to join them and join Future Farmers of America
    0:48:10 and enroll in VOAG classes. And we had a small herd of Black Angus cattle and pigs and chickens and things
    0:48:18 like that. So they started bullying me eventually when I continued to try and be one of them. And that
    0:48:23 moved up through and including physical violence until one night, my family and I, we were asleep.
    0:48:28 It was very late at night and we were awakened to the sound of a gunshot. And we looked around the house
    0:48:34 and I saw this pickup truck driving away, a truck owned by one of the guys who had been bullying me.
    0:48:39 We checked the house. We didn’t see any damage and thought everything was good. Maybe they were just
    0:48:44 a spotlighting deer. The next morning when I woke up, one of my jobs before school was to
    0:48:50 feed and water our animals, including this sweet beagle, a hunting dog that we had,
    0:48:56 whose name was Paula. And when I went to her pen, I found her lying dead with a bullet hole in her head,
    0:49:04 which was a severe grievance. I mean, dog killing is a big deal, as you can imagine. We did report it to the
    0:49:08 police. The police weren’t really willing to do anything. Everything was status quo there.
    0:49:14 Two weeks later, I was home alone. My parents were gone. I heard a car come to a stop in front of our
    0:49:19 house. I looked outside. It was the same pickup truck. And then there was a flash and an explosion
    0:49:25 and they blew up our mailbox. And when they did that, that was kind of it for me. I had been putting
    0:49:32 up with their abuse and tormenting me for years. They had now killed my dog, blown up a mailbox.
    0:49:37 And I thought I’m going to have to escalate as well. I went and grabbed a gun for my dad’s
    0:49:42 nightstand, a handgun that was loaded. I jumped in my mother’s car and I drove after them through
    0:49:47 the middle of the night, pinned them down, caught them against a barn. There was their truck,
    0:49:53 my car behind theirs with my bright beams on, about three or four heads in their rear window.
    0:49:58 And they got out and they’re starting to squint through my high beams to see who had just
    0:50:05 chased them down the road. And what was clear to me at that point was that they were unarmed. They
    0:50:11 didn’t have anything in their hands and that they wouldn’t or couldn’t have known that I had a gun.
    0:50:16 So I had the element of surprise. Everything was set up for me to do, you know, a lot of what you’ve
    0:50:21 just been describing, Guy. I got poked in the eye and now I’m going to take you down. And I had the
    0:50:27 opportunity to do just that. And I opened the door, grabbed the gun, started to get out. But at the
    0:50:33 last second I had this insight. And then if I went through with it, I’d be killing the person that I
    0:50:39 had been when I drove up that road. If I survived it at all, it could have been a gunfight, could have
    0:50:44 been arrested, could be in jail the rest of my life. All sorts of bad things can happen and all sorts of bad
    0:50:51 things do happen in those instances. But this little insight that I would be paying an enormous
    0:50:57 price for getting the revenge I wanted was just enough to cause me to change my mind on it and go,
    0:51:02 Yes, I want revenge and I want it real bad, but I don’t want to pay this kind of price for it. It
    0:51:07 was just too high of a cost. And that was enough to cause me to pull my leg back inside the car,
    0:51:13 put the gun back down on the passenger seat, close the door and drive home. I didn’t forgive them. I
    0:51:20 wanted revenge, but I knew that that wasn’t a price level that I could afford. And like I said,
    0:51:24 after that point, about two years later, I got the idea of going into the professional
    0:51:29 revenge business and becoming a lawyer. And the rest is the history I’ve already described.
    0:51:35 You said a very interesting thing. You did not forgive them. Have you forgiven them yet for killing
    0:51:42 your dog? Yes, I have. And quite some time ago, and I’ve talked to a lot of people who are serious
    0:51:46 dog lovers that go, there is no way. And I would have gone through with it. I would have gunned them
    0:51:53 down. Don’t ever come and kill my, my dog or my cat. Nothing can be worse than that for some people.
    0:51:59 But I hope when they say that they’re talking in euphemisms and they’re not really imagining that
    0:52:06 they would have gone through with it any more than I did. But I will say this, we know from news reports
    0:52:12 and our own lives, many, many people go through with it and they pick that gun up and they go out and
    0:52:18 they fire those bullets and people are hurt or killed. And like I said, we see this in the news every
    0:52:24 day and our prisons are full of it. And the reason that’s occurring is because those individuals have
    0:52:30 a compulsive desire for revenge at that moment and their prefrontal cortex isn’t able to control it.
    0:52:36 And they go through the threat of themselves being punished or even killed. Even killed is not enough
    0:52:43 to stop people from committing acts of violence. Fathers, often it’s fathers, commit murder suicides
    0:52:50 in this country on a weekly basis, sometimes even daily, where they kill the spouse that they love
    0:52:56 and their own children because they feel aggrieved and they want to punish them and get that final last
    0:53:02 word and then kill themselves. That’s how powerful revenge compulsion and revenge addiction really is.
    0:53:09 And we need our public health and mental health professionals to engage with this and begin to,
    0:53:15 one, public health education to warn people about the dangers of revenge desires and how quickly
    0:53:21 they can take over your life and ruin your life and the lives of many other people. And also help treat
    0:53:29 people who have this before they act or even after they’ve acted in order to be rendered safe and
    0:53:36 productive members of society again one day. Wow. Okay. I think we covered it, James.
    0:53:42 I must say this has been one of the darker episodes of Remarkable People, but I think it’s such an important
    0:53:50 topic. And especially in June 2025, there’s a lot of revenge happening in this world.
    0:53:57 And I hope we can shed some light that we do some of that revenge and increase forgiveness in the world.
    0:54:03 I do too. Thank you for the opportunity to share this with your audience, Guy. And I know it sounds dark
    0:54:09 and grave at some points, but most acts of revenge are not violent. And there are small things that can end up
    0:54:16 making our lives less productive and actually become a frustration to our own success. So even controlling
    0:54:21 those small moments can free you to become what you say in your book, a remarkable person.
    0:54:30 I appreciate this very much. And just remember the name of the book is The Science of Revenge. And the
    0:54:37 author is James Kimmel, Jr. So thank you very much for being on our podcast. Now, let me thank the rest of the
    0:54:44 Remarkable People team who made this possible. And I have to start with Madison Neismar, who’s the co-producer.
    0:54:52 The other producer is Jeff C. He’s the sound design maven. And we have a researcher named Tessa Neismar, who does all
    0:54:59 the background research for me. And that’s the Remarkable People team. And we find people like James and their
    0:55:07 brilliant books. So until next time, mahalo and aloha and go out and forgive a few people of the raw
    0:55:13 songs of the grievances. And I would make the case that when you start thinking you’re seeking justice,
    0:55:18 you should take a step back. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mahalo.
    0:55:25 This is Remarkable People.

    What drives us to seek revenge, and why does it feel so satisfying yet leave us worse off? Guy Kawasaki sits down with James Kimmel Jr., a lawyer turned behavioral science researcher who presents a radical reinterpretation of revenge in our society. Kimmel argues that much of what we call justice-seeking is actually a dopamine-driven revenge cycle that perpetuates violence and suffering rather than solving problems.

    Drawing from his personal experiences as a youth and examples from history’s most notorious leaders, Kimmel explores the neuroscience behind revenge addiction and introduces revolutionary concepts like the “non-justice system” – a method for breaking free from compulsive revenge-seeking behavior. His latest book, The Science of Revenge, combines legal expertise with cutting-edge brain research to reveal why forgiveness, not retaliation, is the key to healing and moving forward.

    See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

  • Raging Moderates: Trump’s Desperate Epstein Distractions

    AI transcript
    0:00:06 Megan Rapinoe here. This week on A Touch More, Sue and I are in Indianapolis with a very special
    0:00:13 live show and a very special guest, Caitlin Clark. We dive into her life on and off the court. And
    0:00:18 of course, we play a few games. Need we say more? Check out the latest episode of A Touch More
    0:00:28 wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. This week on The Gray Area, the president of
    0:00:33 Wesleyan College tells me what’s happening on American campuses. The Trump administration is
    0:00:38 attacking colleges, universities because they want to take them over, not because they shouldn’t have
    0:00:45 had encampments or because not enough conservatives are going into physics. What does the attack on
    0:00:51 higher ed mean for America? That’s this week on The Gray Area with me, Sean Elling. New episodes every
    0:00:52 Monday, available everywhere.
    0:01:02 In 2023, a 54-year-old man named William Woods told police that his identity had been stolen.
    0:01:08 But there was a problem. Another man said that he was the real William Woods,
    0:01:11 and it was his identity that had been stolen.
    0:01:16 There’s no way that two human beings could have the same name, the same date of birth,
    0:01:22 the same social security number. So someone clearly was not telling the truth.
    0:01:26 Listen to our latest episode on Criminal, wherever you get your podcasts.
    0:01:36 Welcome to Raging Moderates. I’m Scott Galloway.
    0:01:37 And I’m Jessica Tarlov.
    0:01:38 How are you, Jessica?
    0:01:40 I’m really good. How are you?
    0:01:43 That’s nice. Why are you really good? What’s going on?
    0:01:50 Just like everything’s fine, you know? Like had a nice weekend. Did the thing city people do where
    0:01:55 they go out to the suburbs and they poke around and they say, oh, would this be a nice life? And then
    0:02:04 I get bored in about 20 minutes and retreat back to an urban oasis. And that was kind of it.
    0:02:05 Are you considering moving out?
    0:02:11 No, we do though. Like, oh, would it be nice to have somewhere to go outside the city? Because
    0:02:16 you remember what it was like when the boys were young, though you moved down to Florida. Basically,
    0:02:21 you spend all of your time when you live in a city trying to figure out ways to entertain your
    0:02:26 children and or get out of the city, which makes you think, why am I paying so much money to be
    0:02:30 somewhere that I am actively running away from? So we’re doing that dance.
    0:02:34 Yeah. So I’m very good at running other people’s lives. Let me tell you what you’re doing here.
    0:02:35 Let’s have it.
    0:02:39 So first off, let’s talk about me. So.
    0:02:40 I walked right into that one.
    0:02:45 There you go. Having two little boys in Manhattan. When they’re babies, they’re fine because they’re
    0:02:49 basically like accessories. You hire someone just to keep them alive. I didn’t pay much attention
    0:02:54 to them when they were babies. But then when they start getting less awful and recognizing
    0:03:01 you and expect, you know, calling you dad, I found having boys in Manhattan, two little kids,
    0:03:07 I think they were one and four. Oh, wait. Yeah. One and four. I found it awful. And also the thing
    0:03:13 that was hard for us or I found hard was we weren’t making, I mean, we’re making good money. I was just
    0:03:18 starting kind of getting some traction as an academic. My partner was working at Goldman and we
    0:03:25 were making what felt like a lot of money by most standards and we were broke. And also it was in
    0:03:28 the winter. Oh my God. Get them dressed, get them out, get them exercised, get them home, get them
    0:03:32 undressed, get them fed. Okay. They’re restless again. Get them dressed, get them out, get them
    0:03:37 exercised. And I felt like I always had to have their hand for fear they were going to run into the
    0:03:43 street. I found New York with kids and not having the millions of dollars to lubricate it. It just
    0:03:48 wasn’t great. Yeah. And the lifestyle arbitrage, I’m a big fan of what’s called the lifestyle
    0:03:52 arbitrage. And that is if you have mobility or the ability to mobile, which you may not,
    0:03:56 because you have to go into the studio as I think about it with the five, but we’ll talk about Epstein
    0:04:01 and they’ll fire you and everything will be mobile again. So anyways, thanks a lot. I’ll handle that
    0:04:08 problem. And, uh, we went down to Florida, but I took every dollar I saved, including the 13% swing in
    0:04:17 income taxes. We went from $12,000 a month rent for a three bedroom to $4,500. We went from what would
    0:04:24 have been $52,000 a year in schooling each for them to 12. And I took all of that money and I was very
    0:04:28 disciplined about it and I put it in the market and this is 2010, you know, the story of the markets went
    0:04:34 crazy. And the reason why we’re economically secure, a big part of it was this lifestyle arbitrage. So I’m
    0:04:39 constantly thinking about how people who are mobile can do a lifestyle arbitrage. And it was moving from
    0:04:45 New York to Florida was just an enormous win. It was hard on me from Sunday night to Thursday. I
    0:04:51 commuted to New York, which was not easy, but it was an incredibly creative move for the family
    0:04:57 economically. So I’m a big fan when you have little kids of finding a way to find a better quality of life
    0:05:00 because the reality is you just spend a lot of time at home and you just want to be with your kids and
    0:05:05 your family. Anyways, I think you should move. Yeah, it would just be to your point. Unless I
    0:05:11 get fired today, I need to go to work. So, you know, the question is we could do something like
    0:05:16 that, but then I would be the one missing out on the bulk of their day-to-day lives. But you’re the
    0:05:24 woman. And I am full of estrogen and very attached to these little people that I grew and then got out
    0:05:31 of me somehow. And so that’s tough to think about. And you’re weighing, you know, what am I giving up
    0:05:37 now for what future I’d be handing them, right? To have no student debt, you know, all those kinds of
    0:05:45 things. And it’s just really tough. And this phase of life, I’m early 40, is I feel like any time that
    0:05:49 you go out with friends or anyone that you meet, everyone is having the same exact conversation,
    0:05:54 basically no matter what they’re earning, that they feel like it’s not enough. They don’t know
    0:05:58 how to make the right decisions. First off, you’re not in your 40s. You just turned 40, right?
    0:06:04 41. I’m here. So in New York, that means you’re in your 30s. If you’re a woman, you got to be in
    0:06:09 your 30s. If I had a dating profile, I would be 35 for sure. Yeah, you could pull that off. No problem.
    0:06:16 Just a little a little heads up for those of you out in New York. New York is optimized for two people.
    0:06:24 It’s optimized for really rich guys in their 40s and 50s and really hot women in their 20s and 30s.
    0:06:29 And for everyone else, it’s a soul crushing experience. If you are not in one of those two
    0:06:36 demographics, do not move to New York. It is capitalism meets Darwin meets Three’s Company
    0:06:42 meets I Dream a Genie. It is so harsh. If you’re a dude without money here, I have a friend who was
    0:06:45 thinking of moving to New York. You have no game here if you’re not making millions of dollars as
    0:06:50 a dude. The women who come here, and this is a very sexist statement, they’re looking to consume and
    0:06:54 have a great time and they want to find a dude who can offer them a great time. And that’s not you
    0:06:59 right now because everything in New York to leave your house costs two to $300. To have a good time at
    0:07:06 night costs $600 to $1,000 easily. So anyways, as I say, in New York, for men, 60 is the new 30. And
    0:07:11 for women, 30 is the new 70. Is that wrong? Is that wrong, Jess?
    0:07:16 It’s deeply disturbing. And I think a little bit wrong. I actually, I don’t know. I mean,
    0:07:20 I met my husband later in life. I don’t know, later in life. We got together when I was 36.
    0:07:26 36. And so, you know, prime, like, my eggs are going bad. What’s the deal here? Right? There
    0:07:31 was no time. It was also COVID. So we were just shut in. You’re a TV star, though. You’re a TV star.
    0:07:37 My eggs could still go bad, even though I’m on TV. That’s how that works. But I don’t know. I really
    0:07:42 liked the dating scene. I thought it was a lot of fun in my 30s, even though I went out with…
    0:07:45 Yeah. Fun if you’re Jess Darlow, but I’m not even going to go there. Anyways…
    0:07:47 All right. Moving on. What happened with Epstein?
    0:07:53 All right. Hold on. It took Epstein to potentially bring down a guy already convicted of sexual abuse.
    0:07:59 And this is even the stranger thing that Epstein will be remembered for. He made Rupert Murdoch look
    0:08:06 good. Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch looks like this thoughtful, honest, high-integrity owner of
    0:08:11 journalistic institutions. The Wall Street Journal has done some amazing reporting talking about
    0:08:16 a series of letters that were sent to Epstein for his 50th birthday, including lewd drawings. And
    0:08:22 one of them was reportedly from the president. And the Wall Street Journal has established a reputation
    0:08:29 is when they report that Elon Musk is addicted to ketamine, the whole world takes it very seriously,
    0:08:35 unlike 98% of media outlets now, including some of the others owned by the same individual.
    0:08:40 And the Wall Street Journal has become sort of this arbiter or the nearest thing we have to an
    0:08:46 arbiter of truth around some of these sensitive things. And now the president is suing Rupert Murdoch,
    0:08:50 Jess, do you think this controversy is finally cracking the MAGA shield?
    0:08:55 A little bit. I feel like we don’t want to be boring, right, and do the same thing that we talked
    0:09:04 about last week. But it’s still surprising that something seems to have permeated his flawless,
    0:09:10 I could shoot anyone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and no one would care facade, right? That’s clearly not
    0:09:13 true. There are some limits to it. That doesn’t mean he would lose an election,
    0:09:20 right? Or that this isn’t going to blow over. I think ultimately it kind of has to. But we’re now
    0:09:27 two weeks running of this being the lead story. And more salacious information keeps coming out.
    0:09:34 And you see people in the cabinet and the president almost realizing in real time that they have to do
    0:09:46 something to quench the conspiracy theory addled brains of the base. And they have all these buzzwords,
    0:09:52 right? Like, Russia collusion, hoax, people that set the base off. Like, if you say Comey or Hillary
    0:10:00 Clinton or Brennan, Clapper, et cetera. So they’re just rehashing all of this old, tired news. I feel
    0:10:05 like I almost had to check my calendar. Like, what day is it that you have Tulsi Gabbard talking about
    0:10:12 2016 election interference? We have a new look at Hillary Clinton’s emails. Did you see that?
    0:10:19 Chuck Grassley is out with, you know, we should look at that again. The MLK files are released. So thank
    0:10:23 God for that. Look over here. Yeah, because that’s definitely what everybody wanted in all of this.
    0:10:30 And you see people that are really struggling with the monster that they created themselves.
    0:10:37 It’s just so strange that do you think the MAGA movement cares more about, are they more offended by
    0:10:45 the possibility of powerful men raping children or the fact that their conspiracy theory that they’ve
    0:10:51 invested so much that it might not be validated or nullified? Do they really care about the crime
    0:10:55 or scratching their conspiracy itch? I find this all so weird.
    0:11:06 I think some do. I’ve taken to checking out some smaller, very pro-MAGA accounts online. People who,
    0:11:13 you know, identify themselves as in solidarity with January Sixers, et cetera. There’s a woman in Texas who
    0:11:19 was a Trump delegate, has been obsessed with January Sixers, wanting everyone out, which,
    0:11:24 you know, she got her way with the pardons. And she has about 30,000 followers and she’s gone
    0:11:31 completely scorched earth. It’s not only about being lied to about the Epstein files or that they were
    0:11:38 going to come out. It’s in part that she’s realizing that Donald Trump is exactly who the Democrats said
    0:11:42 that he was, right? That he’s just an elitist that doesn’t really care about you and was using you for
    0:11:49 your votes. But she keeps harping on this. There are children involved in it. This isn’t your everyday
    0:11:54 white collar crime, right? She could deal with a Ponzi scheme. Maybe she could deal with shooting someone in
    0:12:02 the middle of Fifth Avenue. But we are treating the abuse of young girls the same as your run-of-the-mill
    0:12:07 crime from a fancy businessman. And that’s just unacceptable to her. And she’s certainly not alone in that.
    0:12:11 You know, when you look at the replies to it and people that are in those kinds of conversations.
    0:12:17 So, yes, I do think that the content of these crimes matters. And you’re totally right about
    0:12:24 the Wall Street Journal and the caliber of reporting there. But the real hero, journalistically, of the
    0:12:31 Epstein scandal is Julie K. Brown from the Miami Herald. And we don’t talk about local journalists
    0:12:36 enough and local journalism and how important it is that it continues to get funded. I mean,
    0:12:43 there were times when Julie K. Brown was personally paying to be able to continue her reporting and was
    0:12:49 all over the Alex Acosta settlement when that happened. Epstein basically got to, like, you know,
    0:12:55 go golfing and go out to dinner or whatever he wanted after he was convicted in Florida. And that’s my
    0:13:01 first place that I’m going for any information on this. And you see that there’s such a well of extra
    0:13:06 info that we can get out of folks like Julie K. Brown, plus all of this new salacious stuff that’s
    0:13:09 coming out in, you know, the New York Times or the Journal.
    0:13:14 Well, you know, it’s going to help local journalism is cutting a billion and a half dollars from the
    0:13:19 Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I mean, that’s what I was thinking, actually. This is a good
    0:13:26 route to that. Yeah. And what’s so interesting is that the Republicans are much more strategic than
    0:13:32 the Democrats. The biggest tax cut in history, I believe, is not even a tax cut. It’s neutering the
    0:13:39 IRS. They want to fire a layoff about half of the IRS or professionals of the IRS. And who does that
    0:13:44 hurt the most? Does that mean 50 percent less audits? No, it means 90 percent less audits among the top
    0:13:49 1 percent. Because people in lower and middle income households can get audited because it takes a couple
    0:13:54 hours to audit them and figure out if they owe penalties or whatever. But supposedly there’s a tax gap
    0:14:01 of 600 billion dollars. What does that mean? There’s 600 billion dollars that is owed and has not been
    0:14:06 collected because the tax cuts gone from 400 pages to 4,000. And it’s created such complexity that to
    0:14:14 audit somebody with pass-throughs and LLCs and a revocable trust, it takes a team of highly skilled
    0:14:19 professionals. And so they’re smart. They basically just said, let’s neuter the IRS. And that’s effectively
    0:14:25 a massive tax cut for the top 1 percent. But what’s back to Epstein, what’s interesting here is it took
    0:14:30 a conspiracy to create the first kind of bipartisan action of the Trump administration. Representatives
    0:14:35 Massey from Kentucky and Kana from California are currently leading the push in Congress to take
    0:14:42 an up or down vote on releasing the Epstein files. It represents sort of this rare convergence of populist
    0:14:48 right and left. Just as an example, AOC and Lauren Boebert are co-sponsors on the same bill. And on
    0:14:56 Friday, Trump unveiled a lawsuit against your parent firm, Dow Jones and Coa News Corp. The suit also names
    0:15:02 Rupert Murdoch and Chief Executive Robert Thompson and two journal reporters. The lawsuit alleges that
    0:15:07 the journal’s publication of a 2003 letter from Trump to Epstein containing a hand-drawn picture of naked
    0:15:14 woman is not authentic. Trump is seeking $10 billion in monetary damages. Polling from Reuters,
    0:15:19 Ipsos and Quinnipiac University shows that Americans overall disapprove almost completely of how the Trump
    0:15:23 administration has handled the Epstein situation has handled the Epstein situation. The polls came in
    0:15:30 at 54 to 17 percent and 63 to 17 percent respectively. Essentially, just 17 percent Americans believe this
    0:15:37 was handled correctly. You never get 83 percent to agree with anything. So this story is not dying,
    0:15:42 regardless of changing, you know, changing the name back from the Washington commanders to the Redskins or
    0:15:47 whatever attempts at weapons of mass distraction here, which I find kind of hilarious what they keep coming up
    0:15:53 with. This isn’t going away. Any predictions, Jess, on what you think is going to happen here? Do you think
    0:15:58 these files? By the way, has anyone heard from Tulsi Gabbard? Boy, they have her locks away somewhere.
    0:16:04 Well, no, there’s the 2016 Russia interference game that she’s playing now, even though she’s literally
    0:16:11 on tape sitting down with Joe Rogan talking about Russian interference. They’re playing this game. And
    0:16:19 this goes back to what we were saying last week. The modern GOP feeds off of the fact that their most
    0:16:26 devout base will not do any legitimate research on anything. So Tulsi Gabbard is up there basically
    0:16:36 trying to do a bait and switch and saying that Obama weaponized intel about 2016, that they were lying
    0:16:42 about Russian interference when Obama as well on tape saying the Russians did not get into the voting
    0:16:47 machines. They didn’t change votes. But we know that there was an influence campaign. And that’s something that has
    0:16:54 been ratified by a bipartisan Senate committee as well. Marco Rubio, who has every job in the book, will probably be
    0:17:02 asked about that as he was lead on it from the Republican side. It also made me think how strange it feels for there to have
    0:17:08 been bipartisan agreement about anything. 2016, you realize how much things have changed, right? That if something like this
    0:17:15 happened again, like Russian interference, that wasn’t necessarily the collusion that the Democrats were saying it was, but
    0:17:21 certainly interference in the election to try to help Trump win. Like, could you get Republicans to sign on to the fact that that that
    0:17:28 had happened? I don’t really know. So that’s what Tulsi is busy with. I’m very curious about what happens with the
    0:17:39 Galene Maxwell testimony side of this. So Trump’s DOJ lawyer Todd Blanche has reached out to Maxwell’s team saying, you know, we want to
    0:17:48 know what she knows. Also, like, you didn’t think of that before. You have a sex trafficker who worked hand in glove with a woman who
    0:17:53 was not only his business partner and his love partner, but is sitting in a prison cell for sex trafficking
    0:17:59 herself. And we didn’t think like, oh, we should have a chat with her. And the House Oversight Committee just this
    0:18:06 morning approved a subpoena for her. So that may lead to something. But we’ve all got to get then on a Galene
    0:18:12 Maxwell pardon watch. I don’t imagine that we’re going to be getting those Epstein files that have been sitting on Pam
    0:18:19 Bondi’s desk for several months at this point. You know, they are always very precise in how evasive they’re
    0:18:25 being saying, you know, we will release any pertinent grand jury testimony. And a lot of grand jury testimony will
    0:18:31 have to stay secret. But they’re going to pick and choose things and they’re going to do rejections. And, you know, some of the
    0:18:36 stuff should be redacted to protect victims and also people who didn’t really have anything to do with it. Like there are a lot of
    0:18:41 people who hung out with Jeffrey Epstein who certainly weren’t doing it with 13 year old girls and they don’t
    0:18:49 deserve to have their reputations mired as a result of that. So I’m a little bit hopeful slash interested in what
    0:18:54 the Galene Maxwell angle of this reaps. But generally speaking, I think it’ll be business as usual. What about
    0:18:55 you?
    0:19:01 Well, the most puncturing questions around trying to get to these conspiracy theories. I remember when I was living
    0:19:06 in Delray Beach, there was a Stop the Steal parade and all these people in their trucker hats and their
    0:19:14 RAV4s. And I mean, I could not get over. Thousands of people turned up just convinced that 2020 that the
    0:19:18 election had been stolen. And a decent question is, well, if it’s so obvious it was stolen, how come there
    0:19:23 hasn’t been a single prosecution, folks? No lawyer, no prosecutor can find enough evidence.
    0:19:27 60 cases went to court. 60 losses.
    0:19:34 That’s right. And meanwhile, Trump is saying that the whole Epstein thing is a big hoax. Well, then why is Jelaine
    0:19:40 Maxwell in prison? There’s some issues here, but let’s cut to let’s cut to the chase here. Jessica Tarlow, do you
    0:19:41 think Jeffrey Epstein killed himself?
    0:19:43 Yeah.
    0:19:44 Yeah, you think he killed himself?
    0:19:53 I do. I don’t know about whether he, you know, whether it was made possible that he could do it. But yeah, I believe
    0:20:00 that he killed himself and I’ve spoken to people in law enforcement on both sides of the aisle who say
    0:20:06 that. I do think that’s what happens. But you’re seeing the effects of what happens when you’ve put
    0:20:15 people on a steady drip of conspiracies for so long. Like, the Venn diagram of the modern GOP and people
    0:20:23 whose brains have been destroyed by hoaxes and conspiracies is not a near perfect circle, but
    0:20:28 it’s it’s pretty close. It starts with what you’re talking about with the the big lie from 2020.
    0:20:32 Nearly six in 10 Republicans believe that Biden wasn’t a legitimate president and Trump was supposed
    0:20:39 to be president. If Trump hadn’t won the QAnon vote, he wouldn’t have won. He won that by 61 points.
    0:20:45 You know, Pizzagate again. Right. You know, Hillary Clinton’s running a pedo ring out of
    0:20:53 Comet Pizza. You know, all of these things. You know, I understand why someone who had only been
    0:21:00 tuning into media and influencers that were peddling this stuff and it had become such a regular part of
    0:21:06 their jargon. That’s what always surprises me. And I’m sure that there are things that come easily to
    0:21:12 me because of my politics. Right. That I’m online all the time, maybe a little blue pilled on occasion.
    0:21:17 And so I know the intricacies of things in a way that a regular person shouldn’t. But when we’re
    0:21:23 talking about even the Hunter Biden scandal or whatever you want to call it, sometimes my colleagues,
    0:21:27 I’ll say to Jesse Waters, like, I don’t even know what you’re talking about. They’re talking about,
    0:21:33 you know, and then the Mexican billionaire and then the huge diamond and then the Bulgarian this and
    0:21:39 whatever it’s it’s so much to have to keep in your head. I understand that the rest of the world kind
    0:21:45 of falls by the wayside and you become like a scene out of Homeland where you have a board and you have
    0:21:51 strings, you know, connecting different people and you’re just completely consumed by this web.
    0:21:54 Crazy. Absolutely crazy. All right. Jess.
    0:21:59 Oh, wait. Yeah. I’ve talked way too much on this, but I want to say something and I want to hear if you’re
    0:22:04 thinking about it a tale. Sure. So all of this matters. And I’ve moved past the idea of like,
    0:22:09 you should only talk about Medicaid because I think that if the national consciousness is in a specific
    0:22:15 place and it is important and also politically good for your side that you should talk about it.
    0:22:21 But Donald Trump’s numbers are just sinking and sinking and sinking. And it keeps coming out like
    0:22:28 more of this. He only has a positive rating on border security, like 55 percent think that we’re in a
    0:22:33 recession. Sixty four percent of the economy is getting worse. Seventy percent say he’s not focused
    0:22:41 on lowering prices. Like there is such a tremendous hole in the GOP narrative right now. And the big,
    0:22:45 beautiful bill obviously strikes right through that with the twenty nine percent approval rating.
    0:22:51 you see the panic about the Epstein files themselves, but also in terms of what this means
    0:22:58 electorally for them. So. Yeah, it hasn’t hasn’t been a good month. OK. OK. You got that in there.
    0:23:03 Well, I thought you would be more interested, but, you know, sometimes you miss your shot. You shoot
    0:23:08 your shot and you miss. It happens. No, that’s why you’re here. Let’s take a quick break. Stay with us.
    0:23:22 Fox Creative. This is advertiser content brought to you by CVS Caremark. The following are real CVS
    0:23:29 Caremark customer stories read to you by voice actors. All of my productivity comes from being healthy.
    0:23:35 I needed a new glucose monitor right away. There’s eight of us, six kids in our family. We have well
    0:23:42 over 50 prescriptions. Behind every single prescription is a story. These might be stories
    0:23:49 of struggle, of not being able to manage, access or afford the medications you need. CVS Caremark is
    0:23:55 here to rewrite these stories, to transform them into ones of support, care and dignity. Like Rodney’s
    0:24:01 story. He received personal support from a CVS Caremark customer care rep when his glucose monitor
    0:24:06 needed to be replaced right away. When I knew that the representative was listening, I felt at ease,
    0:24:11 like a burden was being lifted. It’s an exhilarating feeling knowing they really care.
    0:24:16 Or like Trisha, who was struggling to manage over 50 medications for her family of eight.
    0:24:20 CVS Caremark helped to make those medications affordable and accessible.
    0:24:26 With a big family like mine and with all the conditions, it’s been extremely affordable for us.
    0:24:32 I can’t say enough good things about CVS Caremark. CVS Caremark makes getting people the medication
    0:24:38 they need part of every story. Because every member deserves their healthier ever after.
    0:24:43 I would never want to switch anywhere else. Interested in more affordable care for your members?
    0:24:49 Go to cmk.co slash stories to learn how we help you provide the support and access your members need.
    0:24:59 The number one movie in the country is Superman. It might be the number one movie in the world.
    0:25:01 Are you being serious right now?
    0:25:03 Yeah.
    0:25:05 But not everybody is loving it.
    0:25:08 Recently, you’ve come under a lot of fire for what some might…
    0:25:09 I don’t know. It’s a lot of fire.
    0:25:09 It’s a lot.
    0:25:14 Kellyanne Conway is mad about it.
    0:25:22 The guy who stars as Superman had the audacity to say, instead of fighting for truth, liberty, and great values in America,
    0:25:23 he refused to say the last part.
    0:25:25 Ben Shapiro is mad about it.
    0:25:30 The reality that Hollywood is so far to the left that they cannot take a core piece of Americana
    0:25:32 and just say it’s about America?
    0:25:35 Even TV Superman Dean Cain is concerned.
    0:25:38 Look, don’t try and make it all woke and crazy.
    0:25:43 What, if anything, is woke and crazy about the new Superman movie on Today Explained?
    0:25:46 We are finally doing Dean Cain Explained.
    0:25:47 Come over and join us.
    0:25:54 It’s Today Explained.
    0:25:56 What’s going on, my boys and in some cases, gals?
    0:25:59 Recently, one of you emailed us with this request.
    0:26:00 You’ve got mail.
    0:26:00 Hello.
    0:26:05 I’m an avid listener, and I strongly believe you should cover the story of Curtis Yarvin.
    0:26:11 It’s important to explore who he is and how he has influenced the MAGA and the Tech Bros movement.
    0:26:21 Curtis Yarvin is a very online far-right philosopher whose ideas include the fascinating, the esoteric, the absurd, the racist, and so on.
    0:26:25 Six months into the Trump administration, there’s evidence that he is influencing the MAGA movement,
    0:26:27 and even President Trump.
    0:26:29 J.D. Vance knows him and likes him.
    0:26:32 Elon consulted him about this third-party idea.
    0:26:35 Yarvin can take some credit for inspiring Doge.
    0:26:45 And, as you’ll hear ahead, one of Trump’s most controversial, doesn’t even begin to cover it, ideas may have come from Yarvin or someone who reads his substack.
    0:26:48 I can almost guarantee you that Trump does not.
    0:26:49 Everything’s computer.
    0:26:51 Today Explained, weekday afternoons.
    0:26:55 Welcome back.
    0:26:59 The redistricting fight is heating up, and this time Democrats are ready to go on offense.
    0:27:08 As Texas Republicans prepare to redraw their map to lock in a House majority, Hakeem Jeffries is leading a push to do the same in blue states like New York and California.
    0:27:12 It’s a bold, expensive, and legally risky move, and a sharp turn from the parties.
    0:27:13 Oh, God, I’m bored reading this.
    0:27:15 David, where’s our producer?
    0:27:23 David, on Sunday nights, I don’t need you, like, getting your kombucha sommelier and listening to the Daily.
    0:27:26 I need you taking an edible before you write this script and watching South Park.
    0:27:30 This shit—we’re not going to talk about redistricting in fucking Texas.
    0:27:30 No.
    0:27:32 Jess, I’m calling an audible.
    0:27:33 Let’s talk about Colbert.
    0:27:34 What do you think happened with the Colbert show?
    0:27:36 Well, that’s just what we’re supposed to talk about after this.
    0:27:37 Oh, is it?
    0:27:38 We can switch the order.
    0:27:38 Yeah.
    0:27:39 David did his job.
    0:27:44 I mean, it’s an important thing, right, if they’re going to get four or five new seats in Texas.
    0:27:46 And it could be about spineless Democrats.
    0:27:47 You love that.
    0:27:53 Well, what do you think—do you think that there’s a risk that Democrats redistricting push backfires?
    0:27:54 No.
    0:27:54 No?
    0:27:55 Literally no.
    0:27:57 Like, I don’t even want to play that game.
    0:27:57 Okay.
    0:28:02 Of, like, oh, what would happen, you know, to decorum and the norms?
    0:28:06 Like, we do that all the time, and then we get our butts kicked.
    0:28:12 Like, you have to fight in the same mud with the Republicans on this.
    0:28:16 I think Governor Newsom is absolutely correct, saying, I will do whatever it takes.
    0:28:22 If Abbott can add four or five seats, then I’m going to try to add four or five seats here in California.
    0:28:26 I saw originally that the New York Dems didn’t have a big appetite for this.
    0:28:31 Well, find the hunger and figure out a way to do this.
    0:28:37 Apparently now New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, and Washington State, I think, are also considering what they can do.
    0:28:40 I had never heard the term dummy-mander, though.
    0:28:41 Have you heard it?
    0:28:42 I haven’t heard that.
    0:28:42 Yeah.
    0:28:50 I just—you know, you’ve got to wonder what kind of precedent this sets for future midterms, especially if both parties abandon any pretense of fair—
    0:28:51 That’s terrible.
    0:28:52 I mean, it really is gone.
    0:28:53 Yeah.
    0:28:56 There is no more decorum, and the gerrymandering is just gone.
    0:28:58 Totally crazy.
    0:29:01 It is—I mean, it’s the boring stuff that’s important, though, right?
    0:29:06 Because essentially what’s happening with gerrymandering is that the general election no longer matters.
    0:29:16 And we have crazies on the left and right winning the election because they all agree to redraw their districts to keep themselves in office, which creates these hard red and hard blue.
    0:29:21 And the primary is the general now, and it’s become a race to who’s the craziest.
    0:29:25 And we end up with the squad and Ted Cruz.
    0:29:28 Do you think this is going to—do you think this is going to go anywhere?
    0:29:30 I think so.
    0:29:38 The special session in Texas is ongoing, and like I said, the Democrats have vowed to respond in kind.
    0:29:46 You know, this would be—usually you have every decade, right, that you look at the census and then you redraw the line.
    0:29:51 So if we’re now doing this every five years, what’s to stop it from happening every two years?
    0:29:57 And what courts will we have that’ll uphold fair districtling laws?
    0:30:04 That remains a question, especially since the Supreme Court has not really been a friend on this topic, to say the least.
    0:30:08 But I was at the Smurfs movie last night, and—
    0:30:09 That’s a flex.
    0:30:10 Thank you.
    0:30:10 It is.
    0:30:12 Move to Florida and take them to the beach.
    0:30:15 Well, we still—I think in Florida they go to the movies too.
    0:30:20 But there’s a reason that I bring up the Smurfs movie, which I did not love as much as I expected to.
    0:30:21 My toddler did.
    0:30:27 But there was this line that I think Papa Smurfs said, don’t mistake kindness for weakness.
    0:30:32 And I feel like the Democrats usually mess that up.
    0:30:39 And you can mistake kindness for weakness because we care about the norms and we care about doing the right thing.
    0:30:41 And I don’t think that we should lose track of that.
    0:30:54 But when it translates into weakness and when Mitch McConnell has eaten your lunch for several decades and maybe Senator Thune will be able to do the same thing, you have to learn to change your behaviors.
    0:31:04 Or at least until we have enough political control that we can effectuate our own agendas and have the Republicans on the back foot.
    0:31:11 Because they have been able to achieve big success, like with this reconciliation bill, with razor-thin margins.
    0:31:20 Which, to your point from a few weeks ago, you know, we helped them with having such old representatives that passed away in office.
    0:31:24 But I’m smurfed out on the don’t mistake my kindness for weakness.
    0:31:26 And I want to see backbone.
    0:31:31 And, you know, the approval rating, the Democratic approval rating, down to 19%.
    0:31:35 And my colleagues are rubbing it in my face like everybody hates you.
    0:31:36 That’s not what the data says, actually.
    0:31:39 They hate the fact that Democrats aren’t fighting.
    0:31:41 It’s not about the policies.
    0:31:43 It’s not about the agenda.
    0:31:46 It’s about how you’re actually doing the business of politics.
    0:31:51 Yeah, this could be – Newsom’s floated the idea.
    0:31:54 California has 52 House seats, 43 held by Democrats.
    0:31:58 And Newsom has said his efforts could add another two or three seats.
    0:32:01 I really do think people underestimate Governor Newsom.
    0:32:07 If I had to bet on anyone right now to be president and people get their hair on fire and California cities do have an issue.
    0:32:10 But do not underestimate Governor Newsom.
    0:32:12 I think he is very good on his feet.
    0:32:15 I think he has actually been aggressive.
    0:32:21 I think he’s pissed off people on the left by pivoting a little bit to the middle to become more centrist, which I think is politically very astute.
    0:32:25 And obviously has a lot of, you know, attributes.
    0:32:27 That he’s very good looking?
    0:32:28 Is that what you’re trying to find?
    0:32:29 Basically.
    0:32:32 By the way, I interviewed Governor Whitmer on Prop G.
    0:32:33 Oh, yeah.
    0:32:34 How was it?
    0:32:35 She’s great.
    0:32:40 So what I do is I do these interviews and then I do a no mercy, no malice take on them after.
    0:32:44 And we’re going to interview, between the two of us, we’re going to interview every presidential candidate.
    0:32:45 I hope so.
    0:32:53 And so my take on her is that it’s heartening that such impressive, good people go into public service.
    0:32:56 She just reeks of integrity and competence.
    0:33:02 She’s just clearly, it would be, it’s very difficult to imagine that she isn’t a good person.
    0:33:04 And it’s clear her heart is in the right place.
    0:33:06 You know, Michigan balances the budget.
    0:33:08 She has really good things to run on.
    0:33:12 The quality of life scoring in Michigan is really high relative to affordability.
    0:33:15 The economy is not robust, but it’s growing.
    0:33:18 They’ve done a good job trying to support manufacturing.
    0:33:20 The University of Michigan, they have a great state school system.
    0:33:22 So she has a lot to run on.
    0:33:23 She’s likable.
    0:33:24 She reeks of integrity.
    0:33:29 My criticism is that she’s sort of infected with the same kind of rhetorical flourish.
    0:33:35 And I had a tough time sometimes getting her to articulate specific policies.
    0:33:39 I think we’ve moved from, in my opinion, my advice to Democrats is, okay, you can try to
    0:33:41 be Obama, but you’re not.
    0:33:42 So stop trying.
    0:33:45 And it’s time for specific programs.
    0:33:51 She did say that she would consider means testing, Social Security, which I appreciate
    0:33:52 because that’s been a third rail for some people.
    0:33:57 But it was a lot of like, you know, good, hardworking Americans, terms like affordability,
    0:34:01 rather than, okay, let’s talk about specific programs.
    0:34:06 I think there’s still going to be a candidate that gets a huge amount of press by coming
    0:34:11 out with a specific, bold, aggressive proposals and programs.
    0:34:13 I think we’ve moved to that part of the program.
    0:34:13 Yeah.
    0:34:16 But I did think she was very good.
    0:34:19 And I’m curious, you know, if the governor continues to get traction.
    0:34:21 I imagine that she will.
    0:34:23 She has a successful track record.
    0:34:28 I do think that there is going to be a lot of anxiety in the Democratic electorate about
    0:34:29 having another female nominee.
    0:34:30 Not going to happen.
    0:34:34 No one under 5’10 is going to be the Democratic nominee.
    0:34:36 It’s going to be a straight white guy over six feet.
    0:34:40 And I’m not saying this is the way the world should be, but the way the world is, the Democrats
    0:34:40 are going to…
    0:34:41 So no Josh Shapiro either?
    0:34:42 I think he’s under 5’10.
    0:34:45 No Josh Shapiro, no Rahm Emanuel, no woman.
    0:34:49 Democrats are so freaked out, they’re going to take no chances, and they’re going to recognize
    0:34:50 that America is highly luxest.
    0:34:51 I hope that changes.
    0:34:55 But I think it’s going to be a straight white guy over six feet.
    0:34:57 I just think they’re going to say, we just can’t take any risks around anything.
    0:35:00 Are you Andy Beshear-pilled right now?
    0:35:04 I think everybody’s desperate to find someone they know, but they don’t know.
    0:35:05 So they’ve heard his name, but they don’t really know him.
    0:35:07 Everyone’s looking for the Obama, the Clinton.
    0:35:09 Like, where did this guy come from?
    0:35:10 Right.
    0:35:12 We’re all hoping that someone emerges at the moment.
    0:35:17 And the Democratic primary, when it’s let it run its course, does mature, you know,
    0:35:21 incredibly strong, battle-tested people, but we don’t need to re-litigate that.
    0:35:24 Okay, Jess, let’s take a quick break.
    0:35:25 Stay with us.
    0:35:29 Hi, everyone.
    0:35:30 This is Kara Swisher.
    0:35:34 This week on my podcast On With Kara Swisher, I caught up with two professional ass-kickers,
    0:35:39 writer E. Jean Carroll and attorney Robbie Kaplan, the duo that took Donald Trump to court
    0:35:43 for sexual assault and defamation, and won, twice.
    0:35:48 Here’s how Carol describes what happened in that Bergdorf-Goodman dressing room in 1996.
    0:35:50 He was being very funny.
    0:35:52 It was light.
    0:35:54 It was funny.
    0:35:56 It was joshing.
    0:35:57 It was witty.
    0:36:02 And then it just turned dark.
    0:36:06 This is exactly what Donald Trump did to the country.
    0:36:08 We all laughed at him.
    0:36:10 We all said he was a clown.
    0:36:16 We all said he was absolutely an empty suit and laughed our asses off.
    0:36:19 And then, boom, it turned dark.
    0:36:20 It was a great conversation.
    0:36:21 You’re going to want to hear it.
    0:36:25 Just search for On With Kara Swisher wherever you get your podcasts.
    0:36:36 Hey, this is Peter Kafka, the host of Channels, a show about media and tech and what happens
    0:36:36 when they collide.
    0:36:42 And this may be hard to remember, but not very long ago, magazines were a really big deal.
    0:36:47 And the most important magazines were owned by Condé Nast, the glitzy publishing empire
    0:36:51 that’s the focus of a new book by New York Times reporter Michael Grinbaum.
    0:36:56 The way Condé Nast elevated its editors, the way they paid for their mortgages so they could
    0:37:03 live in beautiful homes, there was a logic to it, which was that Condé Nast itself became
    0:37:05 seen as this kind of enchanted land.
    0:37:11 You can hear the rest of our chat on channels wherever you listen to your favorite media podcast.
    0:37:18 All right, before we go, first off, I should apologize to our producer.
    0:37:21 Here it is, this story that I wanted, Stephen Colbert.
    0:37:25 He’s out, Jess, or will be come 2026.
    0:37:30 CBS says the Late Show is ending for financial reasons, but the timing is raising eyebrows.
    0:37:34 Just days earlier, Colbert mocked his parent company’s $16 million settlement with Trump,
    0:37:37 a deal that was meant to grease the wheels for a big merger.
    0:37:41 Now, Trump’s cheering the cancellation, and press freedom advocates are sounding the alarm.
    0:37:44 What do you think happened here, Jess? What’s your take?
    0:37:51 I don’t want to say that it’s boring, but my take is I really do believe it was a financial
    0:37:56 decision. You know, we all got outraged at first and said, you know, this is because two
    0:38:01 nights before he had gone after the parent company for capitulating to Trump on the $16 million
    0:38:04 settlement over 60 minutes, which I do think was a complete capitulation.
    0:38:11 But the show costs like $100 million a year and was losing $40 million.
    0:38:18 I think advertising had been cut in half, and he’s earning about $15 million a year, which
    0:38:24 is a lot. I understand, you know, what it takes to put on a cable news show is dramatically different
    0:38:30 than a late night program. But I can’t believe how much it costs to produce that thing.
    0:38:32 Weren’t you shocked by $100 million?
    0:38:40 So, you know, this is the takeaway of the lesson. And I always try to be pedantic and pretend that I
    0:38:46 can articulate a lesson to younger people. I’m very guilty of I think, OK, I can assess the
    0:38:49 situation quicker than your average bear and that I know what’s going on in a situation.
    0:38:53 It’s stunning Kruger. It’s arrogance. And I’m guilty of it. And with this situation, I thought,
    0:38:58 OK, here we go. This is another example of our slow descent into fascism where the president puts
    0:39:04 pressure on the FTC or the DOJ not to approve the merger unless they agree, wink, wink, to silence one
    0:39:09 of their critics. Stephen Colbert, the show gets canceled. And then I actually did the work. And I’ve
    0:39:16 come 180 exactly to where you are. I think this was a financial decision. So late night TV, this isn’t
    0:39:21 the end of the Colbert show. This is the end of late night television. Late night television in 2018
    0:39:26 was garnering $400 million in advertising. It’s now below 200. Colbert’s show has been cut in half.
    0:39:32 In addition, you brought up the most amazing stat. His show’s gone from $120 million to $60 million in
    0:39:40 revenue, cost $100 million. The stat that blew my mind, 200 people working on Colbert. So let’s talk
    0:39:46 about the numbers. It’s gone from $4 million viewership to $2.4 million. And what’s worse, those numbers are
    0:39:51 always somewhat illusory because the key is who’s in the core demographic. The core demo is 18 to
    0:39:56 49. That’s who advertisers care about because 18 to 49 is in your mating years. You make stupid
    0:40:01 decisions. You buy expensive coffee, watches, clothes, high margin products. Old people are
    0:40:05 smart. And so advertisers hate them because they spend nothing but money on pharmaceuticals and
    0:40:10 their grandkids. They’re smart. They’re not trying to find mates. So they’re not irrational,
    0:40:15 which translates to margin. So advertisers hate them. Only 10%, actually 9% of his viewership,
    0:40:21 around 200,000 people were in the core demo. In addition, the show had been sliced and diced.
    0:40:24 It’s no longer a monoculture where we tune in for late night and you see the best two minutes of
    0:40:31 Colbert on TikTok or on YouTube for which they get pennies on the dollar. So 200 people, let’s do the
    0:40:37 math. And I never miss an opportunity to pat ourselves on the back. If you look at the Colbert
    0:40:44 show, 60 million in revenues, 200 people, that’s $300,000 per employee, right? In addition,
    0:40:50 they have all sorts of overhead costs at theater is expensive. The studios, the makeup, the wardrobe,
    0:40:57 the unions, that shit is expensive. Losing 40 million a year. Let’s talk about our universe,
    0:41:02 the property universe. And that includes property markets, conversations, office hours, raging
    0:41:09 moderates. It’ll do between 15 and $20 million next year. Total of generously 15 people.
    0:41:14 We’re doing a million dollars in revenue per employee here. And we’re going 20% a year.
    0:41:21 They’re doing $300,000 per employee and it’s declining. And this is, I think, what happened.
    0:41:26 And this happens a lot. They have the terms of the acquisition drawn up, but they have to meet
    0:41:31 certain terms to close. Basically, Paramount has said, we will deliver to you a company on closing
    0:41:37 that’s doing X top line and X in EBITDA. And one of the ways they’re going to get to that EBITDA
    0:41:44 guarantee and ensure they close is they’re going to cancel a number of shows or expenditures that
    0:41:50 increase the EBITDA. And this is a $40 million increase in EBITDA when they cancel this thing.
    0:41:57 And also, when you acquire a company, part of the conditions are closing or that you have to do all
    0:42:02 the dirty work before you close. And they look at this thing and it’s weeping or it’s hemorrhaging
    0:42:07 $40 million. I mean, it’s losing a million bucks a week, practically. And what Skydance and Ellison
    0:42:13 have said to Paramount is, I don’t want my first all hands to be me announcing that I’m canceling the
    0:42:20 Colbert show. So you have to do this. You have to do the dirty work and clean this thing up and deliver
    0:42:26 to us a company that is profitable and delivers on the numbers that you have said you have presented
    0:42:33 to us during diligence. So this is, in my view, I don’t doubt that politics may have tipped it over,
    0:42:38 may have made it happen sooner, or that part of the reason of the decline in their advertising,
    0:42:43 which has been steeper than Fallon or Jimmy Kimmel, is because he’s increasingly political.
    0:42:47 And there are a lot of advertisers who decide they are not going to advertise on a show
    0:42:53 that is political. Our CPMs are lower than the other podcasts in the Profit universe because there
    0:42:58 is a smaller universe of advertisers. There’s a lot of big advertisers that just say, we don’t advertise
    0:43:04 on politics. And when there’s an absence or a smaller number of potential advertisers, your CPMs go down
    0:43:10 because there’s fewer people competing for your ad revenue or your ad time. So this was what I think
    0:43:16 is being reported. I think this was a financial decision and Skydance saying, you got to handle this
    0:43:21 before we close. David Elson doesn’t want to show up and go, hi, my first act is to cancel the Colbert
    0:43:27 show. They’re like, get your house in order, deliver to us a clean company. Now, I apologize for ranting,
    0:43:32 but I’ve thought a lot about this. This is what’s going to happen moving forward. Stephen Colbert,
    0:43:36 and this is kind of what’s happening in the ecosystem. Stephen Colbert makes between 10 and 20 million
    0:43:40 a year. In two to three years, he’s still going to be making 10 to 20 million dollars because you know
    0:43:41 what he’s going to do, Jess?
    0:43:52 100%. 100%. He’s going to take the best dozen or two dozen people from the Colbert show and he’ll
    0:43:58 wink, wink to his producer, say, and make sure they’re not union. And for a fraction of the cost
    0:44:04 of the means of production, he’ll put out a podcast. Instead of it being a $60 million business, it’ll be
    0:44:09 right out of the gates of $20 million business because that guy is remarkably talented and he
    0:44:15 has a huge audience. Just add water. All you need is two turntables and a microphone and a producer
    0:44:21 like David and a few other people, sound engineers, some people recruiting guests. Maybe he needs a dozen
    0:44:27 people and he’ll have no trouble finding 12 amazing people right out of the gates. He’ll have a top 50
    0:44:34 podcast, maybe a top 20 podcast, and he’ll make the same amount of money. And those 12 people will be
    0:44:37 producing a million and a half or two million dollars. The people who lose here are not Stephen
    0:44:43 Colbert. The people who lose here are the 180 people who lost their jobs a few years ago when
    0:44:47 the world started moving away from ad-supported television and the means of production no longer
    0:44:52 justified the melting ice cube that is their revenues. And he’ll attract a younger audience.
    0:44:59 This is what happened with Megyn Kelly, with Tucker Carlson. Conan O’Brien lost his late night TV
    0:45:05 show. And by the way, I bet he’s making as much money as he was with 10 to 15 people, not 100 to 200.
    0:45:13 This is a shift in the media ecosystem where basically these are becoming TV shows. You watch within
    0:45:18 24 months, half of our listens will be on a TV because people will be streaming it off of YouTube.
    0:45:25 In sum, what we’re going through is an arbitrage where we’re going from one TV show to another TV show,
    0:45:31 but the means of production where it’s a starts as an audio production called a podcast that then
    0:45:36 moves to kind of lower production quality, but acceptable minimum viable product production
    0:45:41 quality that people then watch on. We’re getting a hundred thousand people watching our YouTube
    0:45:46 videos. I bet 40 to 60 percent in the core demographic. We’re getting kind of half the core
    0:45:52 demo right now of probably the Colbert show at a fraction of the cost. So this is essentially
    0:45:58 an arbitrage around the means of production and essentially podcasts are the new TV show just
    0:46:04 reinvented with a much lower cost of production. What does that mean? The talent maintains their
    0:46:09 salary. The people behind right behind the camera, like holding it, hold onto their jobs, the top
    0:46:15 three or five percent. The 95 percent that were involved in producing a typical TV show are out of
    0:46:18 business and shit out of luck. That’s going to be ugly. We’re going to hear a lot of tick tocks
    0:46:23 people who are the associate producer on Jimmy Kimmel tonight, like really upset that they can’t
    0:46:28 find word. The talent maintains the same amount of money. And you know who also loses is the
    0:46:33 shareholders. There’s been very few shareholders of podcast companies that have been able to capture
    0:46:40 revenue. Comcast and, you know, Paramount have been able to capture a lot of the value in terms of
    0:46:44 EBITDA. All of the margin here is being starched out by the talent because the means of production
    0:46:49 are super easy to spin up with a small amount of money. Anyways, that’s my TED talk.
    0:46:56 It’s a good one. You should package that up neatly and go and do it and can take this stat with you.
    0:47:03 YouTube reports that there are 400 million hours of podcasts watched per month. So people are consuming
    0:47:08 us this way. I just the other day was saying to Brian, we were walking around our neighborhood and
    0:47:13 someone stopped me, say, oh, my God, I love you so much. Usually you expect that it’s a Fox thing.
    0:47:16 Your husband was saying that to you? It must be very early in the marriage.
    0:47:17 Yeah, we’re only four years in.
    0:47:19 Oh, no, it was a stranger.
    0:47:19 A stranger.
    0:47:20 It was a stranger.
    0:47:23 A strange man that loves raging moderates.
    0:47:27 And he clearly watches it, though.
    0:47:28 Yeah.
    0:47:32 And I’m increasingly running into people that are consuming it that way. I mean,
    0:47:34 I’m sure social clips are flying around.
    0:47:37 I think we should have a split screen that’s 90 you, 10 me.
    0:47:39 No, people love you.
    0:47:41 I know, I know. People love my voice. They hear my voice.
    0:47:42 I’m telling you.
    0:47:43 That’s why you’re a White Lotus star.
    0:47:44 Yeah, voice only.
    0:47:50 I have a voice for the whole other podcast about how you can survive with vocal fry.
    0:47:52 No, thanks for podcasting.
    0:47:58 So I tuned in for Jon Stewart last night live to the point about, you know, is there any
    0:48:02 appointment TV anymore? And it felt like I was desperate to see what he was going to say
    0:48:08 about it. And he said a lot of things that I agreed with. And one of them that stuck out in
    0:48:16 particular was that he mentioned that this $8 billion valuation is rooted in the fact that 60
    0:48:24 minutes is as fantastic and important and groundbreaking as it is. And late night, that
    0:48:28 the late night show matters. And that Stephen Colbert, who he has the highest ratings between
    0:48:35 him, Fallon and Kimmel. And there’s a whole other discussion. Greg Gottfeld on Fox was beating
    0:48:39 them when he was in that hour. Now he’s at the 10 o’clock hour, still beating them. And
    0:48:46 in many less households, you know, 61 million households versus 300 million households. But
    0:48:50 I thought that that was a really important point that Stewart was making and say, people are not
    0:48:56 interested in buying you without 60 minutes being what it is. And you’re chipping away at
    0:49:01 that by doing things like capitulating to Trump. And that is where the creeping authoritarianism
    0:49:10 argument has a place in it. There’s also something that I think about a lot, which is like the variety
    0:49:18 factor. People want to hear something different. And if you are watching TV at 1130 and you’re either
    0:49:25 watching Fallon, Kimmel or Colbert, you’re basically getting the same thing. And that that has contributed
    0:49:31 to the downfall of late night. I find all of them to be individually funny. You can throw Seth Meyers
    0:49:38 in there as well, that it’s a similar line. You know, nobody likes Trump. Everyone makes similar
    0:49:46 jokes. I feel like Fallon tries to be the most apolitical of them, but it creeps into it. And I
    0:49:51 think that that’s a really bad thing. And it’s not representative of where the country is either.
    0:49:55 You know, a bunch of people who voted the same way as me for their whole lives showed up and
    0:50:03 voted for Donald Trump in 2024. And also they’re probably sick of seeing the same joke retooled
    0:50:09 in a different way. And I found that increasingly. And I really like Colbert. But anytime that I was sent
    0:50:16 a Colbert clip, it was basically the same thing. It was just finding another angle to shit on Trump.
    0:50:22 And I’m all for that. But when you look at those operating costs and then you look at the kind of
    0:50:27 content and the fact that enormous stars, they would still come on the show, but the success of their
    0:50:33 movie or whatever they were, you know, their book, whatever it was, is not dependent on making sure
    0:50:39 that you are the number one guest on Colbert that night. It’s what viral clip can happen. Or frankly,
    0:50:45 can you get on like with Rogan? Can you go sit down with Amy Poehler? Can you go on with a food
    0:50:51 influencer? Can you get, you know, subway takes, hot ones? What, you know, there are all these different
    0:50:58 routes to being a big success right now. And the model just is unsustainable. Then coupled with the
    0:51:07 fact that many nights sounded the same. And we’re looking for something different on a daily basis these
    0:51:12 days. Late night TV is over. It’s, it’s fewer people and older people watching it. Advertisers
    0:51:20 don’t like either of those things, but it’s all being reinvented as a TV show. To a certain extent,
    0:51:25 it’s Twitter. And that is Elon Musk, to his credit, said, I can give you a reasonable facsimile of the
    0:51:32 old Twitter with 20% of the people. And that’s what’s happening here. Trevor Noah, he’s back on
    0:51:38 podcasting. Conan O’Brien, all of these folks, Seth Meyers, they’re going to reinvent themselves as a
    0:51:45 podcast with 10% of the cost and 30% of the revenue, which is an accretive arbitrage. And that’s what’s,
    0:51:51 that’s what’s going on here. Just as we wrap up, Jess, we really need to juice the downloads here.
    0:51:54 So you and I are going to go to the U S open and get on the kiss cam.
    0:52:01 Oh yeah. What do you, what are your feelings about the Coldplay couple? I feel like people that I know
    0:52:07 are on opposite sides of the spectrum, even on what they should have done. A lot of the, well,
    0:52:11 if you just acted normal, my friend was like, why didn’t he just act like he was giving her the
    0:52:14 Heimlich? That’s natural. Totally natural.
    0:52:20 Distinct of all the jokes, Jess, I think it’s, uh, let’s just be serious for a moment. This is a woman
    0:52:24 who raised this guy’s kids and thought she’d found the love of her life. And to find out this way that
    0:52:30 her husband, in fact, is a Coldplay fan is really devastating. That’s good.
    0:52:36 Why is Coldplay so embarrassing to people? Um, doesn’t everyone actually like Coldplay?
    0:52:41 I actually do like Coldplay. Coldplay is amazing. But the, the more meta or serious observation is
    0:52:48 that shaming is, is a key component of our species. And it’s something that feels terrible. And it’s
    0:52:53 part of the reason that young people, uh, are more depressed is that shaming has been scaled and
    0:52:59 industrialized with technology online, but shaming plays an important role in society. You are not
    0:53:05 supposed to, you know, beat up your friend’s children. You’re not supposed to lie with your
    0:53:10 neighbor’s wife and the community shames people for a good reason. It creates a certain level of
    0:53:15 guardrails and a certain level of civility and mends or holds together the fabric. Shaming has played an
    0:53:21 important part in society. Unfortunately, I think technology has scaled shaming to an entertainment
    0:53:28 or to a sport and the algorithms love shaming. And also, I think this is a part of a larger trend.
    0:53:33 And that is, I reverse engineer everything to income inequality. And that is the CEOs are now
    0:53:40 making 300 times what the ordinary worker is versus 30 times. And I find that the algorithms and society
    0:53:45 are much more up for shaming rich white people because they’re fed up with how much money and
    0:53:51 disproportionate opportunity have been granted via income inequality. So if this had been two middle
    0:53:57 class, uh, non-whites, this just wouldn’t have gone viral. People have had it and are looking for
    0:54:03 reasons to shame famous people and especially rich people. And I find the industrialization of shaming
    0:54:08 and the economic incentives around this a little, I think in it, what used to be a means of keeping
    0:54:16 society more cohesive is tearing it apart now. So anyways, I’m, I find it interesting, but more people know
    0:54:21 about these two people right now than they know about, uh, the would be assassin who was murdered
    0:54:27 of Trump. So what does that say about our society and also for the rest of their lives, no matter where
    0:54:32 they are, no matter what they do, the moment they’re introduced to anybody, the moment before they show
    0:54:37 up, come up or leave, that’s what people are going to say about them. Yeah. These people are infamous.
    0:54:45 What are your thoughts? I, I largely agree. His daughter posted a Tik TOK of her kind of standing in front
    0:54:51 of a fire and the caption was like, you know, working it out when your father’s affair, you know,
    0:54:56 goes viral like that. And I can’t even imagine what it’s like to be their families, both of them
    0:55:01 married and she was married to the CEO of a, or is married to the CEO of a different company.
    0:55:08 I don’t like the shame aspect whatsoever. I think life is complicated and you never know what’s going
    0:55:15 on behind closed doors, but the amount of HR, the amount of trainings that I have sat in and had to
    0:55:23 go through these ridiculous scenarios and check the right box that I shouldn’t be calling my colleagues,
    0:55:28 you know, honey pie, and I shouldn’t touch anyone. And what do you do if someone does, you know,
    0:55:37 for her to go out and do that as such rank hypocrisy. And I hate that I expect more of the woman in this
    0:55:44 scenario, especially the woman who is the head of HR, but I do. Um, it does always feel nice when there’s
    0:55:52 a break from what the algorithm is usually pumping into my veins. And you can see a bunch of very
    0:55:58 creative memes. I like the Van Gogh one. I don’t know. Have you seen that where they’re like the
    0:56:04 scream? They’ve been turned into the screen. It’s really good. By the way, I, I, it’s very encouraging.
    0:56:08 I think all that training at Fox has really paid off. My understanding is that firm has had no trouble
    0:56:15 with this type of situation. So it’s good to hear that. What is wrong with you? What’s going on?
    0:56:20 What is wrong with me? I don’t know. Let me talk a little bit about this situation. First is
    0:56:26 I’ve immunized myself from this type of problem because the first thing I do at an all hands is
    0:56:30 I say to everybody, and I’ve run small and medium sized companies. I say, listen, I’m going to share
    0:56:34 something with you because I think vulnerability is the key to masculinity. I’ve been in a terrible
    0:56:39 accident and my inhibition sensors were severely damaged. And there’s going to be some locker room
    0:56:45 talk and some inappropriate touching, but I hope you are patient with me on my journey back. Boom!
    0:56:51 That’s how you inoculate yourself from a situation like this. But seriously, folks, let’s talk a little
    0:56:56 bit about sex in the workplace because having been on a bunch of public company and private company
    0:57:02 boards, this happens all the time. And what you said reminded me of something, our dynamic and our
    0:57:06 species. And that is, and I love what you just said, don’t mistake kindness for weakness. I love that.
    0:57:11 I think that is really powerful. As a matter of fact, and I’m really going off script here,
    0:57:14 when I coach these young men, they eventually, they always say, I would really like a girlfriend.
    0:57:19 I’m like, okay, women are attracted to men for three reasons. They need to signal resources.
    0:57:23 It’s easy to signal resources when you have a Range Rover and a Panerai, but you don’t necessarily need
    0:57:27 to have resources right now. You need to have a plan and you need to have your act together and show
    0:57:32 that you’re disciplined, that you can get up, you leave parties early. You’re not that idiot ordering
    0:57:36 a bottle of Grey Goose at 3 a.m. And women are attracted to someone who looks like they’re going
    0:57:41 to have resources in the future too. Intelligence, easiest way to communicate intelligence, be well
    0:57:45 read, thoughtful, listen, and also humor is a fantastic way to show that you’re intelligent.
    0:57:50 But the most under leveraged thing is kindness. Women instinctively know they’re going to be
    0:57:54 vulnerable during certain periods of their lives, specifically during gestation. And they want
    0:57:58 to see a guy who genuinely is good to people without reciprocal expectation or good to people
    0:58:05 that can’t do anything for him. I’m like, that’s the most under leveraged lever for men. And it’s
    0:58:10 like, well, you can’t force kindness. I do think it’s a practice. I think every day, if you make an
    0:58:14 effort to go out of your way to be kind to people, it becomes muscle memory and you start becoming
    0:58:20 kinder. But, and I’ll bring this back to this, in a work setting, and people get very uncomfortable
    0:58:24 when you talk about this. Anytime you say men are different than women, it’s like, oh, you’re a sexist.
    0:58:28 Yeah, I’m a sexist. Men are different than women. I’m holding to that. And it doesn’t mean we can’t
    0:58:34 have respect for the 5%. They’re non-binary. Just let me throw out my woke disclaimer. Men, what I have
    0:58:37 found, and this is true and there’s evidence here, will mistake, especially in a corporate setting,
    0:58:43 will mistake kindness for sexual interest. And women will mistake sexual interest for kindness.
    0:58:49 And the general policy I find is most effective at an organization or a corporation is the following.
    0:58:56 Below the executive level, 95% of the cohort, our policy has always been, use your common sense.
    0:59:01 You do need, if you develop a relationship, disclose it to HR. But you can’t expect young
    0:59:06 people to work 60 hours a week and then not assume that in situations where they get to demonstrate
    0:59:10 excellence to each other, spend a lot of time together, that they’re not going to fall in love
    0:59:14 or fall in lust, have sex, then fall in love and get married. I’ve had eight marriages
    0:59:19 at my companies. And it’s always like, literally, it’s always the same thing. I found out they’re
    0:59:22 engaged. I’m like, what? They were fucking, I didn’t know that. And I think it’s a wonderful
    0:59:28 thing. And 99% of relationships of work are consensual. Young people need to mate. I think
    0:59:33 it’s a blessing. I think it’s a mitzvah. Above a certain level, and you need to identify that level
    0:59:38 and educate people. Once you hit a certain, quote unquote, the executive washroom, it’s great to be
    0:59:43 you. You’re making millions of dollars, probably. You’re powerful. You have a lot of game. Your fly
    0:59:52 is up and locked. You cannot date people at the company. The moment we find out a CEO is using the
    0:59:57 corporation like Tinder because people are going to be unnaturally nice to you because you have power
    1:00:04 over them, you are guilty. I think that’s the way to approach that. So this guy, both of them
    1:00:08 as C-level executives, consensual or not, they’re guilty. They immediately get fired. And he was
    1:00:13 fired the next day. I don’t know what happened to her. I don’t think we’ve heard. She should be
    1:00:16 fired. She will be fired. If she’s a C-level executive, she should have known better, much
    1:00:21 less been the head of HR. But I think that’s the right policy. Do most of these companies have
    1:00:26 morality clauses also for infidelity? No. Because that’s different. I mean, it’s different if you’re
    1:00:31 just like dating without being married to someone else versus that you’re having an affair. Does it
    1:00:36 matter? None of my companies. I don’t want to be in a position of being someone’s rabbi or the priest.
    1:00:40 They’re consenting adults. But you’re putting other people at risk and the power dynamic gets
    1:00:44 strange once one person is an executive and very powerful. And you’re also putting the company at
    1:00:51 risk. So I do think there’s a difference between two 25-year-olds out of college who decide to date
    1:00:58 and the CEO misinterpreting signals or leveraging his, and it’s almost always the dude, let’s be honest,
    1:01:04 leveraging his power to unfortunately sometimes put people in awkward situations or to start a
    1:01:09 relationship with someone who is impressed by this person because quite frankly, women are impressed by
    1:01:15 power. And then putting the company at risk and creating an uncomfortable power dynamic that may
    1:01:20 put the person in a very uncomfortable situation that they don’t know how to get out of. But again,
    1:01:23 News Corp, I don’t think that’s happened there. I don’t, I don’t think that’s ever happened at your
    1:01:27 organization. Oh my God, that’s good.
    1:01:32 You’re really feeling yourself today. I’m glad you said that though about dating within the workplace
    1:01:40 because it’s such a loss for just growing up to think that you’re going to go and dedicate
    1:01:47 majority of your time to something and that you’re not going to be able to fraternize in that way with
    1:01:51 people at all. I mean, you see this with Gen Z is that they don’t do happy hours, for instance,
    1:01:56 some of the most fun things that I ever participated in, right? Where everyone gets
    1:02:00 together after work and, you know, you have a shared experience that you all work at the same company
    1:02:05 and you meet some really great people and it’s about experimentation and trying things. I mean,
    1:02:09 that’s an absolutely the safest way possible. But if you tell someone, yeah, you’ve got to be here 60
    1:02:15 hours a week. Like also what would happen to doctors? I, all of my friends who are doctors are married to
    1:02:21 other doctors because they did residency together, you know, medical school, fellowship, residency,
    1:02:25 whatever it is, you’re trapped in, I mean, Grey’s Anatomy, going to be the longest running show.
    1:02:27 They have no time to date anyone else.
    1:02:33 Well, right. You’re, and then you all sleep in the on-call room and inevitably you end up on top of
    1:02:36 each other. That’s just what ends up happening. So.
    1:02:38 But in, in related news, I don’t know if you heard this, but Bill O’Reilly,
    1:02:42 News Corp had to pay someone $25 million. It was so nice to see you this week, Scott.
    1:02:48 Just in unrelated news, in unrelated news. That’s fresh, like 2016 election interference. You’re
    1:02:54 the Tulsi Gabbard of this podcast. Little kiss cam on steroids there. All right, Jess. I’m gonna,
    1:02:58 I’m gonna stop giving you a hard time here. Really? That’s all for this episode. Thank you for
    1:03:04 listening to Raging Moderates. Our producers are the excellent and smart and fantastic scripting.
    1:03:08 Amazing writer. David Toledo and Eric Jenicus. Our technical directors,
    1:03:11 Drew Burroughs. Going forward, you’ll find Raging Moderates every Wednesday and Friday.
    1:03:15 Subscribe to Raging Moderates on its own feed to hear exclusive interviews with sharp political
    1:03:20 minds. This week, Jess is speaking to Florida gubernatorial candidate David Jolly. Make sure
    1:03:26 to follow us wherever you get your podcasts so you don’t miss an episode. Jess, have a great rest of
    1:03:27 the week. You too.

    Will Trump ever be able to shake off Jeffery Epstein? Scott and Jessica talk through it, and dissect all the distractions the White House keeps throwing in the way — like Tulsi Gabbard’s surprising (old) claims, and the lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch. 

    Plus: the latest on Texas’s sneaky redistricting efforts, what the Coldplay couple can teach us about dating in the workplace, and what Paramount’s cancellation of Colbert means for the future of late night — and media.

    Follow Jessica Tarlov, @JessicaTarlov

    Follow Prof G, @profgalloway.

    Follow Raging Moderates, @RagingModeratesPod.

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • Summer School 3: How government decides what to spend our money on

    Although it seems like the government can spend an endless amount of money, it cannot actually do all the things it wants to do. So the big question in this week’s lesson is: How do we decide? Why does the government spend so much money on some things and not on others? And honestly, is there any limit?

    Get tickets to our August 18th live show and graduation ceremony at The Bell House, in Brooklyn. (Planet Money+ supporters get a 10 percent discount off their tickets. Listen to the July 8th bonus episode to get the discount code!)

    The series is hosted by Robert Smith and produced by Eric Mennel. Our project manager is Devin Mellor. This episode was edited by Planet Money Executive Producer Alex Goldmark and fact-checked by Emily Crawford.

    Help support Planet Money and hear our bonus episodes by subscribing to Planet Money+ in Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/planetmoney.

    Always free at these links: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, the NPR app or anywhere you get podcasts.

    Find more Planet Money: Facebook / Instagram / TikTok / Our weekly Newsletter.

    Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    NPR Privacy Policy

  • Why Does One Tiny State Set the Rules for Everyone? (Update)

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 Hey there, it’s Stephen Dubner.
    0:00:11 For the past century, one small state, Delaware, has led the nation as the place where new businesses
    0:00:12 go to incorporate.
    0:00:16 Roughly two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies are registered in Delaware.
    0:00:21 We thought this was worth looking into, so a couple years ago we published an episode
    0:00:25 called Why Does One Tiny State Set the Rules for Everyone?
    0:00:28 But recently, Delaware seems to be losing its grip.
    0:00:36 In 2024, a Delaware court invalidated a $56 billion compensation package for Tesla CEO
    0:00:37 Elon Musk.
    0:00:43 So he relocated Tesla’s legal incorporation to Texas, along with another of his companies,
    0:00:43 SpaceX.
    0:00:49 And several other big firms have recently left Delaware, including Dropbox, TripAdvisor, and
    0:00:53 most recently, Andreessen Horowitz, the biggest venture capital firm in the world.
    0:00:58 Three Andreessen Horowitz executives just published a post titled,
    0:01:01 We are leaving Delaware, and we think you should consider leaving too.
    0:01:07 Given this growing exodus, we thought you might like to hear our original episode.
    0:01:08 So here it is.
    0:01:11 As a bonus episode, we have updated facts and figures where necessary.
    0:01:14 As always, thanks for listening.
    0:01:22 Walk me through your attraction to the Delaware story.
    0:01:23 When did that begin and how?
    0:01:28 When I was a financial reporter, all roads seemed to lead to Delaware.
    0:01:32 Elon Musk goes under the microscope in Delaware.
    0:01:36 Twitter is set to depose the Tesla CEO in Wilmington.
    0:01:42 95% of the corporations that are incorporated in Delaware don’t really do any significant business here.
    0:01:49 Evidence has been brought against Victor Boot for weapons trafficking in hot spots around the world
    0:01:53 that span Afghanistan, Colombia, Rwanda, Congo.
    0:01:58 So I had a vague understanding that Delaware was important, but not really why.
    0:02:00 And nobody else seemed to be asking that question.
    0:02:10 The truth is, most people don’t ask any questions about Delaware or even think about Delaware.
    0:02:16 It is the second smallest U.S. state by area, the sixth smallest by population.
    0:02:22 It calls itself the first state, since it was the first of the original 13 to ratify the Constitution.
    0:02:24 What else is it known for?
    0:02:29 The Delaware beaches are absolutely spectacular.
    0:02:31 We have the Grand Opera House.
    0:02:32 We have the DuPont Theater.
    0:02:35 Delaware is a little hidden gem from that perspective.
    0:02:40 Delaware is also a gem if you were looking to hide something yourself.
    0:02:49 The whole system has enabled tax dodging, money laundering, the flow of dark money into the U.S. political system,
    0:02:53 and the trafficking of people, drugs, and arms.
    0:02:58 Delaware has established its own rules for how corporations incorporate.
    0:03:04 You can set up a Delaware company remotely on the Internet without giving any verified information.
    0:03:07 For how legislators legislate.
    0:03:11 You, an elected lawmaker, have no right to make laws.
    0:03:14 Only the unelected lawyers have the right to make laws.
    0:03:16 And even for how lawyers lawyer.
    0:03:21 We’re also known as a bar that operates in what I call the Delaware way.
    0:03:27 We’re in the happy position where most lawyers in the country speak Delaware.
    0:03:33 Today, on Freakonomics Radio, how did one tiny state come to have so much leverage?
    0:03:37 And does anyone care enough to fix it?
    0:03:55 This is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything, with your host, Stephen Dubner.
    0:04:09 In 2022, Hal Weitzman published a book called What’s the Matter with Delaware?
    0:04:15 How the first state has favored the rich, powerful, and criminal, and how it costs us all.
    0:04:19 Weitzman also has a day job at the University of Chicago.
    0:04:28 I’m the editor-in-chief of Chicago Booth Review, where we take academic research and try to make it intelligible to a non-academic audience.
    0:04:37 Before that, he worked for the Financial Times as an editor in London and as a foreign correspondent.
    0:04:45 During that time, he came to notice just how many companies, large and small, are incorporated in Delaware.
    0:04:49 Facebook, Visa, MasterCard, Verizon, Chrysler.
    0:04:51 We’re all touched by Delaware all the time.
    0:04:54 Delaware is everywhere.
    0:04:57 Delaware, in fact, has more companies than people.
    0:05:04 If you look at the Fortune 500, roughly two-thirds of those companies are legally registered in Delaware.
    0:05:09 But only one of those companies, DuPont, is physically based there.
    0:05:13 So why is Delaware such an attractive legal home?
    0:05:24 What’s interesting about that question is that when you ask people who know why do companies incorporate in Delaware, they typically have one response.
    0:05:26 And they’re very sure that that’s the real reason.
    0:05:33 So if you ask a lawyer, they’ll say, it’s the Chancery Court because they have this special court that handles business cases.
    0:05:38 If you ask a tax fairness campaign, they might say, well, Delaware is a tax haven.
    0:05:38 That’s why.
    0:05:43 And some people will say it’s because it’s so easy to set up companies there.
    0:05:50 So, Stephen, you and I could set up a company in Delaware before the end of recording this podcast.
    0:05:54 I actually set one up while you were starting to talk a couple seconds ago.
    0:05:58 I was going to say we could do it while recording the podcast because we don’t need to go there.
    0:06:00 We don’t need to show any identification.
    0:06:03 We don’t need to do anything other than pay the fees.
    0:06:08 And if we pay the right fees, we can get it done in as little as half an hour.
    0:06:15 In fact, since writing this book, I’ve been informed that if you call the right person, you can get it done in about 10 minutes.
    0:06:19 Did I mention they’re open till midnight to process applications?
    0:06:27 What office do you know, a government office that stays open till midnight, just so they can be as business friendly as possible?
    0:06:28 Keep going.
    0:06:30 Are there other players who might give different answers?
    0:06:31 Yeah, there are.
    0:06:36 A corporate secrecy campaigner will say it’s because they allow corporate anonymity.
    0:06:39 They have this don’t ask, don’t tell policy where you can set up a company.
    0:06:41 You don’t have to say who’s behind it.
    0:06:50 And then there’s a whole load of sort of other, which is people who don’t really know why they’re incorporating in Delaware.
    0:07:01 They’re just told, lawyers tell them that’s the place to go, or the people who are funding them tell them, well, if you want funding from us, we’re a venture capital firm, you’ve got to set up in Delaware.
    0:07:03 We only fund Delaware companies.
    0:07:10 And so you get these single answers, and all of these single answers are valid.
    0:07:21 There is no single simple answer because there are 1.8 million companies registered in Delaware, and they range from Google, Amazon to Joe Schmo, LLC.
    0:07:24 So their motivations are not going to be the same.
    0:07:33 If I had to sew all this together, Stephen, I would say that if there’s one overarching theme of what makes Delaware so attractive, it’s probably efficiency.
    0:07:36 I’ve got nothing against efficiency.
    0:07:38 But what is the cost of efficiency?
    0:07:39 That’s the only question I ask.
    0:07:47 Weitzman argues there are a lot of costs to Delaware’s way of doing business.
    0:07:51 That’s what I call the franchise, this kind of legal, industrial complex.
    0:07:57 For starters, let’s consider what Delaware’s tax policy is costing other states.
    0:08:07 If you look at state corporate income tax receipts over the past 50 years, they’ve completely collapsed, partly because companies have used a tax dodge called the Delaware loophole,
    0:08:14 where they’ve funneled profits through Delaware holding companies to avoid paying tax in other states.
    0:08:23 And Delaware doesn’t charge tax on so-called intangible profits, so things like trademarks and slogans.
    0:08:29 And firms have been creative in deciding what falls into that intangible profit category.
    0:08:30 Oh, yeah.
    0:08:35 So one of my favorite examples of the so-called Delaware loophole is WorldCom.
    0:08:47 If you remember, the telecoms company paid its holding company in Delaware $20 billion over just three years for an intangible asset,
    0:08:53 therefore avoiding tax elsewhere and not paying in Delaware because they don’t tax intangibles.
    0:08:59 WorldCom, you may recall, turned out to be one big heap of accounting fraud.
    0:09:04 In the early 2000s, the company blew up and its CEO went to prison.
    0:09:08 And the intangible asset it was paying for was management foresight.
    0:09:18 In other words, saying that the profits it was making were because its management had superior skill to all other executives,
    0:09:21 and therefore that was an intangible asset.
    0:09:28 Well, if you come up with $20 billion to shuffle off to Delaware, it does suggest superior skill of one sort, doesn’t it?
    0:09:29 You’ve got good accountants.
    0:09:31 That’s what it suggests.
    0:09:37 To be fair, the accountants have a lot to work with in Delaware.
    0:09:40 Let’s go back to the ease of setting up a company there.
    0:09:46 It’s easier to set up a company in Delaware than to get a library card in Delaware.
    0:09:49 If you want to get a library card, you need to turn up in person.
    0:09:51 You need to show a valid ID.
    0:09:58 But you can set up a Delaware company remotely on the Internet without giving any verified information.
    0:10:00 And here is Dan Nielsen.
    0:10:05 He is a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin who studies corruption.
    0:10:12 No one’s breaking the law by not demanding photo ID in Delaware because the Delaware law does not require it.
    0:10:14 So, you know, that’s the problem.
    0:10:16 And why is that a problem?
    0:10:21 Because anonymity makes it a lot easier to hide illegal activity.
    0:10:26 John Kassara is a retired agent and investigator with the U.S. Treasury Department.
    0:10:29 He spent years chasing money launderers.
    0:10:33 There’s lots of different definitions of money laundering, but the one I use is very simple.
    0:10:41 It’s really hiding or disguising the proceeds of any form of criminal activity.
    0:10:44 It’s drug trafficking, but it’s also human trafficking.
    0:10:47 It’s also arms trafficking.
    0:10:50 It could be the proceeds of child pornography.
    0:10:57 The way Kassara sees it, the kind of anonymity offered by Delaware makes money laundering pretty easy.
    0:11:08 To be a money launderer and to be caught, and I don’t care whether it’s the United States or overseas, you would have to be really, really stupid or really, really unlucky.
    0:11:18 Now, there are, of course, a lot of stupid criminals, and there are some unlucky ones, and we get them, but your odds of getting caught are slim and none.
    0:11:34 I’ve spent a lot of money laundering, and I would invariably have a student or a colleague come up to me and say,
    0:11:43 Yeah, Mr. John, I hear you, but we’re conducting a money laundering investigation in my country, and it goes to your country.
    0:11:44 It goes to the state of Delaware.
    0:11:48 We can’t get any information about this company.
    0:11:49 Can you help us?
    0:11:54 There was nothing I could do, and I was just embarrassed, just embarrassed.
    0:12:03 Now, to be fair, Kassara isn’t talking about the big and mostly law-abiding corporations that register in Delaware for the legal and tax advantages.
    0:12:07 He’s primarily talking about LLCs, or limited liability companies.
    0:12:13 In 2023 alone, more than 200,000 new LLCs registered in Delaware.
    0:12:19 Many of these are perfectly legitimate operations that are simply exploiting the Delaware advantages.
    0:12:25 But Delaware is also known for anonymous LLCs, some of which are shell companies.
    0:12:27 Now, what’s a shell company?
    0:12:33 It’s a company without an active business organization or significant assets.
    0:12:42 They’re kind of hollow, and that’s what frustrates criminal investigators so often, because we’re following the money trail.
    0:12:47 It often comes back to the U.S. Delaware LLCs.
    0:12:50 And the problem is there’s nothing there.
    0:12:53 We don’t know who’s actually behind the company.
    0:12:54 Let’s have an example.
    0:13:00 I think a lot of people are familiar with Victor Boot, or at least the name Victor Boot.
    0:13:06 Boot is a Russian arms dealer who, in 2022, was released from U.S. detention in a prisoner exchange.
    0:13:10 The Biden administration exchanged Victor Boot.
    0:13:15 They released him in exchange for U.S. basketball star Brittany Griner.
    0:13:19 Boot is known as the merchant of death.
    0:13:32 Basically supplied, you know, long-running civil wars in places like Sierra Leone and Angola and the Central African Republic and Sudan, Libya, on and on and on and on.
    0:13:48 Now, to set up his network, Victor Boot and his organization needed to set up a number of shell companies to mask their work and to launder the money, to launder the proceeds of crime.
    0:13:58 So I’ve seen some reports that Boot and his organization established up to 10 shell companies in Delaware alone.
    0:14:01 Here’s the thing.
    0:14:05 The U.S. prides itself on the legitimacy of its financial system.
    0:14:11 Legitimacy of this sort typically includes a high level of transparency.
    0:14:26 Yes, we do have financial frauds and opaque investments and bank failures, but we also have a ton of regulations, reporting and compliance and disclosure regulations designed to boost transparency.
    0:14:31 So how does the U.S. compare to other countries when it comes to transparency?
    0:14:34 Well, that is an empirical question.
    0:14:38 And for the answer, we need to go back to Daniel Nielsen at the University of Texas.
    0:14:47 I research international development broadly with a focus on the control of corruption, which brought me to this topic of anti-money laundering.
    0:14:54 The world’s foremost anti-money laundering organization is called the Financial Action Task Force.
    0:14:57 It has 39 members, including the U.S.
    0:15:07 Its mission is to set international standards to ensure national authorities can effectively go after illicit funds linked to serious crimes.
    0:15:11 These are the Financial Action Task Force recommendations.
    0:15:13 They’re not laws, right?
    0:15:16 They’re what we call an international relations soft law.
    0:15:20 So there’s no enforcement mechanism, right?
    0:15:27 It’s not like there’s some global police that can bust you and put you in handcuffs and take you away to global jail.
    0:15:28 That doesn’t happen.
    0:15:33 But what they do have is the ability to set expectations.
    0:15:35 And there’s lots of international standards.
    0:15:36 They’re voluminous.
    0:15:48 One of the main ones we focused on is that you need to know who controls the companies that move that money, who is ultimately in charge of that company and that bank account.
    0:15:50 This is called the beneficial owner.
    0:16:02 And in order to make sure you can track that person, international standards require that you get photo ID of the beneficial owner.
    0:16:08 And so we just started with that, just like, to what degree is this practice being followed?
    0:16:18 Nielsen, along with fellow researchers Michael Findley and Jason Sharman, conducted a massive experiment to learn where this recommendation was and was not being followed.
    0:16:21 We thought the best way to learn is just to ask directly.
    0:16:30 We just created a bunch of false names from all around the world asking for shell companies, saying that confidentiality is important.
    0:16:34 I think it was like 7,500 emails that we sent.
    0:16:36 We kind of gave them a hint.
    0:16:38 If we can get away with something here, we want to.
    0:16:40 We said, what’s required?
    0:16:42 What documents do you need from us?
    0:16:46 And then they told us, you know, whether or not they required photo ID.
    0:16:53 Nielsen and his co-authors compiled their findings in a 2014 book called Global Shell Games.
    0:16:58 We reported that the United States was the easiest place in the world to get an anonymous shell company.
    0:17:01 And the easiest place in the United States was Delaware.
    0:17:08 They replicated the experiment in 2019, and the results suggest it’s still pretty easy to get a shell company in the U.S.
    0:17:12 Nielsen is not the only researcher to find a result like this.
    0:17:22 In 2025, the U.K.-based Tax Justice Network released a financial secrecy index, which ranked the U.S. number one in the world as, quote,
    0:17:27 the most complicit in helping individuals to hide their finances from the rule of law.
    0:17:31 This is not a good look for any country.
    0:17:34 And over the years, some members of Congress have tried to address the problem.
    0:17:41 The United States passed, I think, a landmark law, the Corporate Transparency Act, in 2020.
    0:17:48 So that’s pretty important legislation that requires that company owners, that we get photo ID for them.
    0:17:51 This law went into effect at the start of 2024.
    0:17:58 But in March of this year, the Trump administration announced that the law would not be enforced against U.S. citizens and companies.
    0:18:05 According to Hal Weitzman, Delaware was heavily involved in lobbying for this new law.
    0:18:13 So the solution that we’ve come up with is, rather than asking people at the point that they register the company, who’s behind this company?
    0:18:16 We’re going to let them register a company anonymously.
    0:18:22 And then a month later, they have to file another form with the federal government saying who’s behind the company.
    0:18:28 It’s a bit like, imagine, Stephen, imagine you got on a flight and you flew somewhere internationally.
    0:18:32 And then a month later, you had to send in a photocopy of your passport.
    0:18:34 It’s a bit like that.
    0:18:38 And so when you ask transparency campaigners, what do you think we should do?
    0:18:43 They say, just ask people at the moment that they incorporate who they are.
    0:18:47 You’re going to register at the state level, but then you’re going to identify yourself at the federal level.
    0:18:51 A month later, why would we set up a bifurcated system like that?
    0:18:56 Only because Delaware doesn’t want to add another question to its form.
    0:18:57 Who are you?
    0:19:01 And then ask its registering agents to verify that you are who you say you are.
    0:19:09 Coming up after the break, how did Delaware get this kind of leverage and how do they keep it?
    0:19:11 The bottom line is it comes down to money.
    0:19:14 OK, I’m Stephen Dubner.
    0:19:16 This is Freakonomics Radio.
    0:19:17 We will be right back.
    0:19:31 OK, from what we’ve learned so far, the Delaware franchise,
    0:19:35 what Hal Weitzman calls the state’s legal industrial complex,
    0:19:39 is valuable to legitimate corporations looking to profit maximize
    0:19:43 and to illegitimate players looking to dodge the law.
    0:19:48 But let’s be honest, it is also incredibly valuable to Delaware itself.
    0:19:52 The legal industry is very important to Delaware’s economy.
    0:19:54 That is Deneen Damon.
    0:19:56 I am a director with Richards, Leighton & Finger,
    0:19:59 which is the largest law firm in Wilmington, Delaware.
    0:20:04 Wilmington is the biggest city in Delaware, but still, it only has around 70,000 residents.
    0:20:10 That includes a lot of lawyers, many of whom Damon knows personally.
    0:20:12 The Delaware bar is very intimate.
    0:20:16 We’re also known as a bar that operates in what I call the Delaware way.
    0:20:21 That means you may be with different law firms and you may compete
    0:20:23 with other law firms for some of the same business.
    0:20:27 But at the end of the day, we’re all moving in the same direction.
    0:20:30 And how influential is the Delaware way?
    0:20:36 The laws in Delaware absolutely have formed the basis for some of the most monumental decisions
    0:20:38 when it comes to corporations.
    0:20:41 We are very protective of our laws.
    0:20:46 They are especially protective of what’s known as the Delaware General Corporation Law.
    0:20:51 That is the statute that governs the companies that are incorporated in Delaware,
    0:20:55 which, as we’ve already heard, includes most big American companies.
    0:20:58 And what’s involved in this protection?
    0:21:03 So there’s a corporate counsel that is constantly reviewing the corporate statute,
    0:21:06 looking at how entities are used.
    0:21:11 Are there issues that have popped up through various court cases that might need to be addressed?
    0:21:15 Take, for example, the use of electronic means.
    0:21:19 When these statutes were initially drafted, everything was done on paper.
    0:21:25 If you think about where we are now, most things are done electronically over the computer.
    0:21:29 So updating the statute over time to allow for electronic signatures
    0:21:31 and the filing of documents electronically,
    0:21:36 that’s what the Bar Association committees are laser-focused on doing.
    0:21:39 Making sure that that work is done in a very meaningful way,
    0:21:44 in a very consistent way, and also in a very timely way.
    0:21:48 As Hal Weitzman described it earlier,
    0:21:53 the Delaware franchise is an efficiency maximizer.
    0:21:54 Yeah, that’s right.
    0:21:59 What it exemplifies is a kind of clubby system that is the Delaware way.
    0:22:01 Heavy on backroom wheeling and dealing,
    0:22:04 scant on democratic oversight.
    0:22:09 As Weitzman sees it, the chief crop of Delaware is corporate law.
    0:22:13 It exports corporate law all over the United States and all over the world.
    0:22:15 It sets the standard.
    0:22:18 That code is written by 27 working lawyers
    0:22:22 who are part of this Corporation Law Council of the Delaware Bar.
    0:22:28 They meet in private and they issue proposed changes every year to the law.
    0:22:34 And then they present these often very technical proposals to the Delaware state legislature
    0:22:39 without any explanation, without any justification of why these changes are necessary.
    0:22:45 As I imagine the state legislators trying to assess the merits of this argument,
    0:22:51 and I’ve also read in your book that Delaware has the least well-educated state house in the U.S.
    0:22:58 with a pretty high share of lawmakers not holding a college degree and a very low level of lawyers in the legislature as well.
    0:23:09 I imagine this transaction as if someone brings to me the findings of a recent set of experiments about nuclear fusion
    0:23:10 and says,
    0:23:11 Hey, Dubner, what do you think?
    0:23:13 Is that about what we’re talking about?
    0:23:16 Yeah, I mean, they’re told these are the experts,
    0:23:17 here’s their proposals,
    0:23:20 and they effectively rubber stamp them.
    0:23:25 The thing that I found interesting about the process is these working lawyers,
    0:23:26 they appear in court,
    0:23:31 they argue cases under the laws that they themselves are writing.
    0:23:33 So being in the University of Chicago,
    0:23:39 it brings to mind the work of the legendary U Chicago Nobel laureate George Stiegler,
    0:23:42 who introduced the idea of regulatory capture.
    0:23:44 And in regulatory capture,
    0:23:50 interest groups come to control lawmaking and regulation of their own sectors,
    0:23:54 and then the regulators sort of become lobbyists for the industries they oversee.
    0:23:57 Delaware has kind of perfected that,
    0:24:01 because the lawyers don’t even need to lobby the legislature to change the corporate code.
    0:24:03 They just write it themselves,
    0:24:04 and it gets rubber stamped.
    0:24:06 So the system’s efficient,
    0:24:07 it’s effective,
    0:24:08 it’s just not democratic.
    0:24:10 There’s no checks and balances.
    0:24:15 There’s an interesting story that encapsulates this system.
    0:24:16 In 2017,
    0:24:19 there’s a lawmaker in Delaware,
    0:24:20 now retired,
    0:24:22 a guy called John Kowalko,
    0:24:26 styled himself as the Bernie Sanders of Delaware.
    0:24:28 And John Kowalko
    0:24:30 proposed that
    0:24:32 Delaware
    0:24:34 should require
    0:24:36 agents who register companies
    0:24:39 to check the name of the companies
    0:24:40 against a list
    0:24:42 called the OFAC list,
    0:24:44 basically a list of organizations that the U.S.
    0:24:46 has deemed to be terrorist organizations.
    0:24:50 This is a pretty non-controversial proposal.
    0:24:51 In fact,
    0:24:54 it actually was adopted later by Delaware
    0:24:55 as a law.
    0:24:58 But when John Kowalko tried to promote it,
    0:24:59 he was asked,
    0:25:01 has this gone through the process?
    0:25:03 Michael Kowalko says,
    0:25:04 what do you mean?
    0:25:05 What process?
    0:25:06 In Delaware,
    0:25:08 changes to the corporate code
    0:25:09 have to come
    0:25:11 from the Corporation Law Council
    0:25:12 of the Delaware Bar.
    0:25:13 In other words,
    0:25:14 you,
    0:25:15 an elected lawmaker,
    0:25:16 have no right to make laws.
    0:25:18 Only the unelected lawyers
    0:25:20 have the right to make laws.
    0:25:21 And these lawyers,
    0:25:22 Weitzman argues,
    0:25:24 inevitably make laws
    0:25:26 that protect and promote
    0:25:27 the Delaware franchise.
    0:25:28 He points back
    0:25:30 to the Corporate Transparency Act,
    0:25:32 the federal legislation
    0:25:33 that Delaware pushed hard
    0:25:34 to shape,
    0:25:36 thereby preserving
    0:25:37 Delaware’s right
    0:25:38 to allow companies
    0:25:40 to register anonymously.
    0:25:41 And why is it so resistant
    0:25:42 to knowing
    0:25:43 who’s behind them?
    0:25:44 Because most companies
    0:25:45 would be perfectly happy
    0:25:46 to tell us
    0:25:47 who the owners are.
    0:25:49 So it’s really just,
    0:25:49 well,
    0:25:50 who are we protecting?
    0:25:52 A tiny number of wrongdoers.
    0:25:53 I think it’s definitely
    0:25:54 an unfair label
    0:25:55 for us to have.
    0:25:57 Deneen Damon again,
    0:25:58 for the defense.
    0:25:59 The probability
    0:26:00 of bad actors
    0:26:02 using Delaware entities
    0:26:03 for nefarious purposes
    0:26:05 increases just by
    0:26:06 the sheer number
    0:26:06 of entities
    0:26:07 that are being formed
    0:26:08 on an annual basis.
    0:26:09 But I don’t think
    0:26:11 that’s a fair analysis.
    0:26:13 There is a rigorous process
    0:26:14 in place
    0:26:14 to form an entity
    0:26:15 in Delaware.
    0:26:16 You have counsel
    0:26:17 working with you
    0:26:19 to submit the proper documentation.
    0:26:20 It’s not as easy,
    0:26:21 you know,
    0:26:22 to simply draft up
    0:26:23 three paragraphs,
    0:26:24 submit something to the state,
    0:26:25 and you’re done.
    0:26:26 I think oftentimes
    0:26:27 people assume
    0:26:28 that because it’s
    0:26:30 a relatively quick process
    0:26:31 that it’s also
    0:26:33 a relatively easy process,
    0:26:34 and those two
    0:26:35 are not analogous.
    0:26:36 It’s a quick process
    0:26:37 because we have
    0:26:38 a system in place.
    0:26:39 The law firms here
    0:26:40 and the lawyers here
    0:26:41 are well-versed
    0:26:43 in entity creation,
    0:26:44 so we know
    0:26:44 what advice
    0:26:45 to give our clients.
    0:26:46 We know how to lead them
    0:26:47 through the process.
    0:26:48 This is what we do
    0:26:49 every day.
    0:26:49 This is what we do
    0:26:50 for a living.
    0:26:55 The bottom line
    0:26:55 is it comes down
    0:26:57 to money, okay?
    0:26:58 That, again,
    0:26:59 is John Kassara,
    0:27:01 the former Treasury investigator.
    0:27:03 This is state government greed.
    0:27:05 That’s the bottom line.
    0:27:06 They do it
    0:27:09 because it generates revenue,
    0:27:11 and to a lesser extent,
    0:27:12 it generates
    0:27:14 some job opportunities.
    0:27:15 Now, this is Delaware,
    0:27:17 but then you extrapolate
    0:27:18 that overseas,
    0:27:19 and you’ve got
    0:27:21 all these little islands
    0:27:22 in the South Pacific
    0:27:23 or in the Caribbean
    0:27:23 or elsewhere.
    0:27:25 They don’t really have
    0:27:26 much out there
    0:27:26 but, you know,
    0:27:27 bat guano,
    0:27:29 and so what are you
    0:27:29 going to do?
    0:27:30 You’ve got to get
    0:27:31 something to generate money,
    0:27:32 so they set up
    0:27:34 these financial havens,
    0:27:35 these tax havens,
    0:27:37 and it attracts money.
    0:27:40 It was Upton Sinclair
    0:27:41 who once said,
    0:27:42 it is difficult
    0:27:43 to get a man
    0:27:44 to understand something
    0:27:46 when his salary
    0:27:47 depends upon
    0:27:48 his not understanding it.
    0:27:50 In a given year,
    0:27:51 the Delaware franchise
    0:27:52 generates roughly
    0:27:53 $2 billion
    0:27:55 for the state.
    0:27:57 For a big state
    0:27:57 like New York
    0:27:58 or California,
    0:27:59 that would be
    0:27:59 a rounding error,
    0:28:01 but for tiny Delaware,
    0:28:02 that represents
    0:28:03 about one-third
    0:28:04 of government revenues.
    0:28:05 That’s one reason
    0:28:06 that Delaware levies
    0:28:07 no state
    0:28:09 or local sales taxes.
    0:28:10 And then there are
    0:28:11 all the jobs
    0:28:11 for lawyers,
    0:28:13 paralegals,
    0:28:14 administrative assistants,
    0:28:14 notaries,
    0:28:16 and all the other jobs
    0:28:17 supported by the money
    0:28:18 those people spend.
    0:28:20 So it’s easy to see
    0:28:21 why Delaware
    0:28:22 has little incentive
    0:28:23 to impose
    0:28:25 transparency regulations
    0:28:26 or other regulations
    0:28:27 that might undercut
    0:28:28 its franchise.
    0:28:30 Especially because
    0:28:31 they’re lucky
    0:28:32 to have the franchise
    0:28:33 in the first place.
    0:28:34 Here’s Hal Weitzman again.
    0:28:36 Delaware didn’t win
    0:28:38 this industry
    0:28:38 because it had
    0:28:39 a better business model.
    0:28:41 It won it
    0:28:42 by picking it up
    0:28:43 from New Jersey
    0:28:44 who bowed out.
    0:28:46 This requires
    0:28:47 a brief history lesson.
    0:28:48 So in 1888,
    0:28:50 New Jersey
    0:28:51 allowed
    0:28:53 holding companies
    0:28:53 where one company
    0:28:55 owns another.
    0:28:56 And then
    0:28:57 that decade
    0:28:57 after that,
    0:28:58 they relaxed
    0:28:59 the rules a lot
    0:29:00 on corporate structures
    0:29:01 and what they could do.
    0:29:03 So by 1911,
    0:29:04 this had attracted
    0:29:06 a lot of corporations
    0:29:07 to set up
    0:29:08 in New Jersey
    0:29:09 and their franchise tax
    0:29:10 accounted for about
    0:29:11 a third of their
    0:29:12 state revenue.
    0:29:14 That’s the same share
    0:29:15 Delaware has today.
    0:29:16 And other states,
    0:29:17 including Delaware,
    0:29:18 copied them
    0:29:18 but they just
    0:29:19 couldn’t get market share
    0:29:22 until the election
    0:29:23 of 1913
    0:29:24 when there was
    0:29:25 this interesting
    0:29:26 three-way contest
    0:29:27 for the presidency
    0:29:29 between Taft,
    0:29:29 who was the incumbent,
    0:29:30 Woodrow Wilson,
    0:29:31 who was the Democrat,
    0:29:32 and Teddy Roosevelt
    0:29:34 was the progressive candidate.
    0:29:36 And a big issue
    0:29:37 in that election
    0:29:38 was how to regulate
    0:29:39 corporations.
    0:29:41 And Teddy Roosevelt
    0:29:42 attacked Wilson
    0:29:43 in public saying,
    0:29:44 you haven’t reined
    0:29:45 in the companies
    0:29:46 in your own state.
    0:29:47 How are you going to do that
    0:29:47 in the United States?
    0:29:50 He was rattled by this.
    0:29:51 And when Wilson
    0:29:51 won the election,
    0:29:53 he went home to New Jersey,
    0:29:54 fired up.
    0:29:56 In his lame duck session,
    0:29:57 his allies
    0:29:58 in the state legislature
    0:30:00 introduced a bill
    0:30:01 to ban holding companies
    0:30:02 plus a host
    0:30:03 of other measures.
    0:30:04 And the corporations
    0:30:04 fled.
    0:30:05 New Jersey
    0:30:06 and Delaware,
    0:30:07 which had copied
    0:30:08 their law,
    0:30:09 was there to welcome
    0:30:10 them with open arms.
    0:30:13 Delaware is very aware
    0:30:14 of this history
    0:30:16 and it wants to make sure
    0:30:17 that it doesn’t do anything
    0:30:18 to jeopardize
    0:30:19 this source of revenue
    0:30:21 as New Jersey did.
    0:30:22 And it’s always aimed
    0:30:22 to stay ahead
    0:30:23 of any competitors
    0:30:24 by making itself
    0:30:26 as business-friendly
    0:30:26 as possible.
    0:30:29 Are there any campaigns
    0:30:30 either overt
    0:30:31 or covert
    0:30:32 to steal
    0:30:34 the franchise
    0:30:35 from Delaware?
    0:30:36 Perhaps you,
    0:30:36 Hal,
    0:30:37 and your book
    0:30:37 are part of some
    0:30:38 stealth campaign
    0:30:40 by some other state?
    0:30:40 I mean,
    0:30:41 your book is published
    0:30:42 by Princeton University Press,
    0:30:43 which is located
    0:30:44 in New Jersey.
    0:30:44 Well,
    0:30:45 I should say,
    0:30:45 first of all,
    0:30:46 I’m not paid
    0:30:47 by any state
    0:30:48 to provide
    0:30:49 any kind of services
    0:30:49 of that nature.
    0:30:53 There have been some attempts.
    0:30:54 Nevada is one state
    0:30:55 that has attempted
    0:30:57 to win this business
    0:30:58 and Wyoming,
    0:30:59 another state
    0:31:00 that has attempted
    0:31:00 to win this business.
    0:31:02 How do they do it?
    0:31:03 By sort of being
    0:31:05 a cut-price version
    0:31:06 of the real thing.
    0:31:07 They’re kind of
    0:31:08 the private label
    0:31:09 cola,
    0:31:10 you know?
    0:31:12 And like private label
    0:31:12 cola,
    0:31:14 some people like it,
    0:31:15 but most people don’t.
    0:31:16 What about South Dakota?
    0:31:17 They show up
    0:31:18 in this realm
    0:31:18 now and again,
    0:31:19 don’t they?
    0:31:19 Yeah,
    0:31:21 in the 1980s,
    0:31:21 there was an interesting
    0:31:22 battle between
    0:31:23 South Dakota
    0:31:24 and Delaware
    0:31:26 to win the admiration
    0:31:29 of financial institutions.
    0:31:31 South Dakota
    0:31:32 was the first state,
    0:31:32 I believe,
    0:31:33 to say,
    0:31:33 we’ll get rid of
    0:31:34 interest rate caps
    0:31:35 for credit card companies.
    0:31:37 And there was a great concern
    0:31:38 at the time in Delaware
    0:31:40 that the credit card companies
    0:31:41 would just go South Dakota.
    0:31:42 And so,
    0:31:43 they invited in
    0:31:45 two of the biggest
    0:31:45 Wall Street names
    0:31:46 to rewrite
    0:31:47 their financial rules.
    0:31:49 And they did it
    0:31:49 in private,
    0:31:50 of course,
    0:31:50 because it’s Delaware.
    0:31:51 Nothing is public.
    0:31:53 It was all very secret.
    0:31:54 And then they introduced them
    0:31:55 to the legislature
    0:31:57 in the late afternoon
    0:31:57 and said,
    0:31:58 you’ve got three hours
    0:31:58 to approve these.
    0:31:59 And nobody,
    0:32:00 of course,
    0:32:01 could understand
    0:32:01 what the hell
    0:32:02 they were reading.
    0:32:02 So,
    0:32:03 it all got voted through.
    0:32:04 And that’s how
    0:32:05 the credit card companies
    0:32:07 ended up in Delaware.
    0:32:08 But South Dakota
    0:32:09 was able to win
    0:32:10 the trust business.
    0:32:11 If you look at
    0:32:12 how much the trust
    0:32:13 business is worth
    0:32:14 to South Dakota,
    0:32:15 it’s negligible.
    0:32:16 It’s basically nothing.
    0:32:18 Because there aren’t
    0:32:19 as many trusts,
    0:32:20 right?
    0:32:21 Whereas companies,
    0:32:22 there are 1.8 million
    0:32:23 of them.
    0:32:24 It’s a volume business
    0:32:26 is kind of,
    0:32:26 you know,
    0:32:27 stack them high
    0:32:28 and sell them cheap.
    0:32:30 But also,
    0:32:31 Weitzman admits,
    0:32:33 Delaware has become
    0:32:35 so good at being Delaware
    0:32:36 that the other places
    0:32:37 just can’t compete.
    0:32:38 So,
    0:32:39 most people go
    0:32:40 for the real thing.
    0:32:41 You know,
    0:32:42 being a Delaware company
    0:32:43 means something.
    0:32:44 It’s hard to recreate
    0:32:45 the reputation.
    0:32:46 It’s hard to recreate
    0:32:47 things like the
    0:32:48 Chancery Court.
    0:32:49 Coming up after the break,
    0:32:51 we will hear about
    0:32:52 the Chancery Court,
    0:32:53 perhaps the most
    0:32:54 special feature
    0:32:56 of the Delaware franchise.
    0:32:57 I do sit
    0:32:58 on a high bench
    0:32:59 with a robe on.
    0:33:00 Fortunately,
    0:33:00 we don’t do wigs.
    0:33:01 I’m Stephen Dubner.
    0:33:03 This is Freakonomics Radio.
    0:33:04 We will be right back.
    0:33:17 Okay,
    0:33:18 we promised we would
    0:33:19 tell you about
    0:33:19 one of the most
    0:33:20 special features
    0:33:22 of Delaware’s
    0:33:23 massive legal
    0:33:24 industrial complex.
    0:33:25 My name is
    0:33:26 Travis Laster,
    0:33:27 and I’m here today
    0:33:28 because I’m a member
    0:33:28 of the Delaware
    0:33:29 Court of Chancery.
    0:33:30 And what is
    0:33:32 the Court of Chancery?
    0:33:33 Well,
    0:33:34 there’s a short answer
    0:33:35 and a long answer.
    0:33:36 The short answer
    0:33:37 is we are one of the
    0:33:38 three constitutional
    0:33:39 courts of Delaware.
    0:33:41 We are best known
    0:33:42 as perhaps
    0:33:43 the nation’s
    0:33:44 preeminent venue
    0:33:45 for deciding
    0:33:46 business disputes.
    0:33:48 The longer answer
    0:33:48 is that we’re
    0:33:49 a court of equity,
    0:33:50 and I’d be happy
    0:33:51 to spell that out
    0:33:52 if you want to hear
    0:33:52 the long story.
    0:33:54 Let’s hear
    0:33:55 the medium story.
    0:33:56 Sure.
    0:33:58 So a court of equity
    0:33:59 is an artifact
    0:34:00 of really the
    0:34:01 Middle Ages
    0:34:02 legal system
    0:34:03 in Britain.
    0:34:05 If you think back
    0:34:06 to the 1300s,
    0:34:07 the reign of
    0:34:08 King Edward,
    0:34:09 the legal system
    0:34:10 in England
    0:34:10 had gotten
    0:34:11 very,
    0:34:13 very formal
    0:34:14 and
    0:34:14 fixed.
    0:34:15 They would
    0:34:17 only let you
    0:34:17 file a case
    0:34:18 if you could
    0:34:18 fill out a form
    0:34:19 called a writ
    0:34:20 and fill in
    0:34:21 the blanks
    0:34:21 precisely.
    0:34:23 If you were
    0:34:23 a wealthy
    0:34:24 member of the
    0:34:25 nobility,
    0:34:26 you had
    0:34:27 another recourse
    0:34:28 and that was
    0:34:28 that you could
    0:34:29 go to the king.
    0:34:30 And the king
    0:34:30 had something
    0:34:32 better than
    0:34:32 the courts.
    0:34:33 He had soldiers.
    0:34:35 So he could
    0:34:36 send out his
    0:34:37 soldiers and
    0:34:38 regardless of
    0:34:38 what the court
    0:34:38 said,
    0:34:39 his soldiers
    0:34:40 could either
    0:34:40 make you
    0:34:41 do something
    0:34:42 or they
    0:34:42 could make
    0:34:43 you stop
    0:34:44 doing
    0:34:44 something.
    0:34:45 So what
    0:34:46 happened was
    0:34:47 privileged people
    0:34:48 would access
    0:34:48 the king
    0:34:49 and the king
    0:34:50 got tired
    0:34:51 of hearing
    0:34:52 these petitions
    0:34:54 but our kings
    0:34:55 in England
    0:34:56 had a right-hand
    0:34:57 man and he
    0:34:57 was the
    0:34:58 chancellor.
    0:34:59 And so
    0:35:00 starting in
    0:35:00 King Edward’s
    0:35:01 time,
    0:35:02 he would refer
    0:35:03 these petitions
    0:35:04 to the
    0:35:04 chancellor
    0:35:05 and the
    0:35:06 chancellor
    0:35:06 would make
    0:35:07 decisions about
    0:35:08 what to do
    0:35:08 with them.
    0:35:09 And so
    0:35:09 over time
    0:35:10 what grew
    0:35:10 up was
    0:35:10 this
    0:35:11 separate
    0:35:11 system
    0:35:12 in England
    0:35:13 where there
    0:35:13 was a
    0:35:14 court of
    0:35:14 chancery
    0:35:15 headed by
    0:35:15 the chancellor
    0:35:16 and eventually
    0:35:17 vice-chancellors
    0:35:19 existing beside
    0:35:19 the court
    0:35:20 of law.
    0:35:21 And when
    0:35:22 the colonies
    0:35:23 were established
    0:35:24 that system
    0:35:24 came over
    0:35:25 here.
    0:35:25 Now let’s
    0:35:26 fast forward.
    0:35:27 Most places
    0:35:28 in this country
    0:35:30 today do not
    0:35:31 have a separate
    0:35:31 court of
    0:35:31 chancery.
    0:35:32 There are only
    0:35:33 three states
    0:35:33 that have a
    0:35:33 separate court
    0:35:34 of chancery
    0:35:34 Delaware,
    0:35:35 Tennessee,
    0:35:36 and Mississippi.
    0:35:37 In most
    0:35:38 places they
    0:35:38 said,
    0:35:39 why do we
    0:35:39 need two
    0:35:39 court systems?
    0:35:40 We’re going
    0:35:40 to combine
    0:35:40 them.
    0:35:42 So why did
    0:35:42 it persist
    0:35:43 in Delaware?
    0:35:44 It persisted
    0:35:45 in Delaware
    0:35:46 because part
    0:35:46 of the
    0:35:47 traditional
    0:35:47 jurisdiction
    0:35:48 of the
    0:35:48 court of
    0:35:49 chancery
    0:35:50 is over
    0:35:51 fiduciary
    0:35:51 relationships.
    0:35:53 And fiduciary
    0:35:53 relationships
    0:35:54 include
    0:35:54 trustees,
    0:35:56 guardians,
    0:35:57 and similar
    0:35:58 relationships like
    0:35:59 directors of
    0:35:59 a corporation.
    0:36:01 So that
    0:36:01 is the
    0:36:02 entry point
    0:36:04 for business
    0:36:05 jurisdiction
    0:36:06 in the
    0:36:06 court of
    0:36:06 chancery.
    0:36:07 and that’s
    0:36:07 the
    0:36:08 entry
    0:36:08 point
    0:36:08 for
    0:36:09 Delaware
    0:36:09 being a
    0:36:09 special
    0:36:10 place
    0:36:10 and the
    0:36:11 court
    0:36:11 being a
    0:36:11 special
    0:36:12 place
    0:36:12 for
    0:36:12 hearing
    0:36:12 business
    0:36:13 disputes.
    0:36:14 One thing that
    0:36:14 makes the
    0:36:15 court of
    0:36:17 chancery especially
    0:36:18 special is there
    0:36:18 are no
    0:36:19 juries.
    0:36:20 If your
    0:36:20 case is
    0:36:21 assigned to
    0:36:22 me, I’m
    0:36:22 it.
    0:36:23 I’m both
    0:36:24 the ruler
    0:36:24 on the
    0:36:25 law and
    0:36:26 the finder
    0:36:26 of the
    0:36:26 facts.
    0:36:28 And part
    0:36:28 of what our
    0:36:29 court is
    0:36:29 known for
    0:36:30 is putting
    0:36:31 out detailed
    0:36:32 opinions that
    0:36:33 not only
    0:36:33 resolve the
    0:36:34 case at
    0:36:35 hand, but
    0:36:35 also give
    0:36:36 people guidance
    0:36:37 for how to
    0:36:38 deal with the
    0:36:39 next situation.
    0:36:40 The other
    0:36:40 thing that I
    0:36:40 think people
    0:36:41 like about
    0:36:41 it is there’s
    0:36:42 a know-your-jurist
    0:36:43 factor.
    0:36:44 So there
    0:36:45 are 10
    0:36:45 members of
    0:36:46 the court.
    0:36:47 All of us
    0:36:48 are, for
    0:36:48 better or for
    0:36:48 worse,
    0:36:49 very well
    0:36:50 known,
    0:36:50 particularly
    0:36:50 to the
    0:36:51 Delaware
    0:36:51 practitioners.
    0:36:52 And part
    0:36:53 of the
    0:36:53 value you
    0:36:54 bring as
    0:36:54 a Delaware
    0:36:55 lawyer is
    0:36:56 to be able
    0:36:56 to, in
    0:36:56 effect,
    0:36:57 psychoanalyze
    0:36:58 your judge
    0:36:58 and be able
    0:36:59 to predict
    0:36:59 what they
    0:36:59 will do
    0:37:00 in particular
    0:37:00 situations.
    0:37:01 I know
    0:37:02 people are
    0:37:02 out there
    0:37:03 psychoanalyzing
    0:37:03 me in
    0:37:04 terms of
    0:37:05 every case.
    0:37:05 And what
    0:37:06 would such
    0:37:07 an analysis
    0:37:07 come up
    0:37:07 with?
    0:37:08 They’re
    0:37:08 going to
    0:37:09 say that
    0:37:09 Laster
    0:37:10 doesn’t
    0:37:10 have
    0:37:11 patience
    0:37:11 for people
    0:37:12 who make
    0:37:13 extreme
    0:37:13 arguments
    0:37:14 or things
    0:37:15 that just
    0:37:15 sound good,
    0:37:16 but you
    0:37:17 don’t test
    0:37:17 them.
    0:37:18 They’re also
    0:37:18 going to
    0:37:19 tell you
    0:37:20 to be
    0:37:20 completely
    0:37:21 transparent.
    0:37:22 Part of
    0:37:23 what we’re
    0:37:23 trying to
    0:37:24 offer is
    0:37:24 high
    0:37:25 integrity
    0:37:25 and part
    0:37:26 of high
    0:37:26 integrity
    0:37:27 is high
    0:37:27 transparency
    0:37:28 and that
    0:37:29 extends to
    0:37:29 the litigants
    0:37:30 as well.
    0:37:31 So what
    0:37:31 does Judge
    0:37:32 Laster
    0:37:33 say about
    0:37:33 Delaware’s
    0:37:34 reputation
    0:37:35 as a
    0:37:36 haven for
    0:37:36 anonymous
    0:37:37 LLCs
    0:37:38 and shell
    0:37:38 companies
    0:37:39 and money
    0:37:40 launderers?
    0:37:41 No one
    0:37:41 wants Delaware
    0:37:42 corporations
    0:37:43 or alternative
    0:37:43 entities being
    0:37:44 used for
    0:37:45 money laundering
    0:37:46 or criminal
    0:37:47 activity.
    0:37:48 If you
    0:37:49 made me
    0:37:50 U.S.
    0:37:51 king for
    0:37:51 a day,
    0:37:52 I would
    0:37:53 require across
    0:37:54 the board
    0:37:54 some level
    0:37:55 of disclosure
    0:37:57 for all
    0:37:57 jurisdictions.
    0:37:58 What I
    0:37:58 think you
    0:37:59 have there
    0:38:01 is a
    0:38:01 first-mover
    0:38:02 problem.
    0:38:02 This is one
    0:38:03 of those
    0:38:04 places where
    0:38:04 if Delaware
    0:38:05 starts requiring
    0:38:06 disclosure and
    0:38:07 nobody else
    0:38:07 is requiring
    0:38:08 disclosure,
    0:38:10 then that’s
    0:38:10 a place
    0:38:11 where we
    0:38:11 could
    0:38:11 conceivably
    0:38:13 suffer harm
    0:38:13 to the
    0:38:13 franchise.
    0:38:17 And Delaware,
    0:38:18 as we have
    0:38:19 already noted,
    0:38:20 is not
    0:38:21 interested in
    0:38:21 suffering harm
    0:38:22 to its
    0:38:22 franchise.
    0:38:24 Does this
    0:38:24 mean the
    0:38:25 franchise itself
    0:38:26 is to some
    0:38:27 degree
    0:38:28 corrupt?
    0:38:29 A lot of
    0:38:30 people would
    0:38:30 say yes
    0:38:31 to some
    0:38:31 degree.
    0:38:33 And what
    0:38:33 about the
    0:38:34 Court of
    0:38:34 Chancery?
    0:38:36 Here,
    0:38:37 even Hal
    0:38:38 Weitzman is
    0:38:38 a defender.
    0:38:39 It has
    0:38:40 some quirks.
    0:38:41 It definitely
    0:38:42 operates in
    0:38:42 the interests
    0:38:43 of Delaware,
    0:38:44 but I’m not
    0:38:45 sure that that
    0:38:47 necessarily means
    0:38:47 that the
    0:38:48 judgments that
    0:38:49 it issues
    0:38:50 are not
    0:38:51 fair and
    0:38:51 well thought
    0:38:52 out and
    0:38:52 technically
    0:38:53 excellent.
    0:38:54 So the
    0:38:54 Chancery Court
    0:38:55 is a great
    0:38:55 advantage of
    0:38:56 Delaware,
    0:38:57 and once
    0:38:57 again,
    0:38:59 if it’s
    0:38:59 really about
    0:39:00 the Chancery
    0:39:00 Court,
    0:39:02 then why
    0:39:02 do we need
    0:39:03 anonymous
    0:39:03 corporations
    0:39:04 which almost
    0:39:05 by definition
    0:39:06 cannot appear
    0:39:07 in Chancery
    0:39:07 Court?
    0:39:08 Now, Hal,
    0:39:09 let me ask you
    0:39:09 this.
    0:39:10 As I hear you
    0:39:11 talk about the
    0:39:11 book, I see
    0:39:13 why this
    0:39:14 topic was so
    0:39:14 attractive.
    0:39:15 It’s this
    0:39:17 bizarre den
    0:39:18 of anomalies
    0:39:20 that everyone
    0:39:21 kind of shrugs
    0:39:22 at in a way.
    0:39:23 I’m curious
    0:39:25 why you
    0:39:25 wrote the
    0:39:25 book, other
    0:39:26 than the
    0:39:26 fact that
    0:39:26 it’s a good
    0:39:27 story and
    0:39:27 you’re a
    0:39:27 writer and
    0:39:28 that’s what
    0:39:29 you do.
    0:39:29 Do you
    0:39:30 want this
    0:39:30 to serve
    0:39:31 as some
    0:39:32 kind of
    0:39:33 polemic or
    0:39:33 at least
    0:39:34 cautionary
    0:39:34 tale or
    0:39:35 were you
    0:39:35 just telling
    0:39:36 the story?
    0:39:37 I think a
    0:39:37 bit of both.
    0:39:38 I am
    0:39:39 attracted to
    0:39:39 really
    0:39:39 interesting
    0:39:40 stories,
    0:39:41 particularly
    0:39:42 obscure
    0:39:43 stories and
    0:39:44 this was
    0:39:44 one of
    0:39:44 those.
    0:39:45 When I was
    0:39:45 writing this
    0:39:46 book, do
    0:39:46 you ever get
    0:39:47 that moment
    0:39:47 when you’re
    0:39:48 working on a
    0:39:49 story and you
    0:39:50 think, this
    0:39:51 can’t be
    0:39:51 right?
    0:39:52 And I had a
    0:39:52 last minute
    0:39:54 panic because
    0:39:54 it’s just so
    0:39:55 weird.
    0:39:55 So I called
    0:39:56 the Secretary
    0:39:56 of State’s
    0:39:57 office in
    0:39:57 Delaware and
    0:39:58 said, I
    0:39:58 just want to
    0:39:59 check how
    0:40:01 many companies
    0:40:02 of all the
    0:40:03 1.8 million
    0:40:04 companies registered
    0:40:04 in Delaware, how
    0:40:05 many are owned
    0:40:06 by people
    0:40:07 resident outside
    0:40:07 the US and
    0:40:08 how many are
    0:40:09 owned by US
    0:40:09 resident?
    0:40:10 They said, we
    0:40:12 don’t know and
    0:40:13 there is no way
    0:40:14 of knowing.
    0:40:14 If you don’t
    0:40:15 collect the
    0:40:16 information, then
    0:40:16 there’s nothing
    0:40:17 to dig into.
    0:40:18 And that’s sort
    0:40:19 of the dead
    0:40:20 end that
    0:40:21 investigators have
    0:40:21 always come up
    0:40:22 with when they’re
    0:40:23 trying to pursue
    0:40:24 cases that lead
    0:40:24 to Delaware.
    0:40:26 Let’s imagine
    0:40:27 for a moment
    0:40:27 that the
    0:40:29 franchise in
    0:40:30 Delaware were
    0:40:31 shut down,
    0:40:32 which is hard
    0:40:32 to imagine.
    0:40:33 It’s so
    0:40:33 entrenched and
    0:40:34 it seems like
    0:40:35 it’s got a lot
    0:40:36 of friends in
    0:40:36 high places and
    0:40:37 very few
    0:40:38 enemies really
    0:40:39 with any sort
    0:40:39 of leverage.
    0:40:40 But let’s
    0:40:41 pretend just for
    0:40:41 a moment that
    0:40:42 it did happen.
    0:40:43 I am assuming
    0:40:45 that none of
    0:40:46 the activity
    0:40:47 that’s facilitated
    0:40:48 there would
    0:40:48 stop.
    0:40:49 It would just
    0:40:49 find other
    0:40:51 willing hosts.
    0:40:52 You agree?
    0:40:54 Yes.
    0:40:54 And what that
    0:40:55 tells us is this
    0:40:56 is an American
    0:40:56 problem.
    0:40:57 It’s not just a
    0:40:58 Delaware problem.
    0:41:00 But Delaware
    0:41:01 has set the
    0:41:01 rules.
    0:41:02 It’s set the
    0:41:03 rules that the
    0:41:03 world has to
    0:41:04 follow.
    0:41:04 It’s set the
    0:41:05 rules that enable
    0:41:06 corporate
    0:41:07 anonymity,
    0:41:08 unlimited
    0:41:09 interest rates
    0:41:09 on credit
    0:41:10 cards,
    0:41:11 other elements
    0:41:11 of the
    0:41:12 corporate
    0:41:12 code.
    0:41:12 And it’s
    0:41:14 done so in
    0:41:14 a way that
    0:41:15 has effectively
    0:41:16 bypassed
    0:41:17 democratic
    0:41:18 oversight.
    0:41:20 Now, if I
    0:41:20 recall correctly,
    0:41:22 there was a
    0:41:23 longtime U.S.
    0:41:23 senator from
    0:41:24 Delaware named
    0:41:24 Joe Biden,
    0:41:25 who then became
    0:41:26 president of the
    0:41:26 United States.
    0:41:27 What was his
    0:41:29 position on the
    0:41:30 Delaware franchise,
    0:41:31 as you call it?
    0:41:31 How much did he
    0:41:33 defend it and how
    0:41:34 did he benefit
    0:41:34 from it?
    0:41:35 Joe Biden did
    0:41:37 not create the
    0:41:39 franchise or the
    0:41:40 Delaware way, but
    0:41:41 he’s very much a
    0:41:41 creature of that
    0:41:42 system.
    0:41:43 In terms of his
    0:41:44 style, he’s known
    0:41:45 for his belief in
    0:41:46 bipartisanship, his
    0:41:47 deal making.
    0:41:48 that’s very much
    0:41:49 a Delawarean
    0:41:51 type way of
    0:41:52 approaching politics.
    0:41:53 In terms of his
    0:41:55 funding, throughout
    0:41:56 his 36 years in
    0:41:57 the Senate, his
    0:41:57 main donors were
    0:41:59 all big law firms
    0:42:00 that benefit from
    0:42:01 the system.
    0:42:02 And then in terms
    0:42:03 of his voting
    0:42:04 record, he led
    0:42:05 the efforts to
    0:42:06 tighten bankruptcy
    0:42:08 rules because of
    0:42:08 the credit card
    0:42:09 companies that are
    0:42:10 based in Delaware
    0:42:10 and their
    0:42:11 interests.
    0:42:12 States tried to
    0:42:14 put caps on how
    0:42:15 much interest
    0:42:16 credit card
    0:42:17 companies could
    0:42:17 charge.
    0:42:19 But the
    0:42:19 credit card
    0:42:20 companies, the
    0:42:21 big ones, are
    0:42:21 registered in
    0:42:22 Delaware.
    0:42:22 And because they’re
    0:42:23 registered in
    0:42:23 Delaware, they
    0:42:24 were subject to
    0:42:25 Delaware law.
    0:42:26 And what is the
    0:42:27 cap that Delaware
    0:42:28 law established for
    0:42:29 credit cards?
    0:42:29 No cap.
    0:42:32 So if I am a
    0:42:33 credit card company
    0:42:35 and I register in
    0:42:36 Delaware, could I
    0:42:37 charge 300%
    0:42:37 interest?
    0:42:38 I don’t think
    0:42:39 there’s anything
    0:42:40 legally stopping
    0:42:40 you from doing
    0:42:40 that.
    0:42:41 So here’s
    0:42:42 something that
    0:42:43 Elizabeth Warren
    0:42:44 wrote about Joe
    0:42:45 Biden in 2002.
    0:42:47 his energetic
    0:42:48 work on behalf of
    0:42:49 the credit card
    0:42:49 companies has
    0:42:50 earned him the
    0:42:51 affection of the
    0:42:52 banking industry
    0:42:53 and protected him
    0:42:55 from any well-funded
    0:42:56 challengers for his
    0:42:57 Senate seat.
    0:42:58 Does that seem like a
    0:43:00 fair assessment or do
    0:43:00 you think that’s
    0:43:01 overstating it?
    0:43:03 He certainly was a
    0:43:05 strong defender of
    0:43:06 the interests of
    0:43:07 credit card companies
    0:43:08 on Capitol Hill.
    0:43:09 You remember there
    0:43:10 was a lender called
    0:43:11 MBNA.
    0:43:12 They were the ones
    0:43:13 who came up with
    0:43:14 all the loyalty
    0:43:14 cards.
    0:43:16 So if you wanted to
    0:43:18 have a Chicago Bears
    0:43:20 credit card or a
    0:43:20 University of Chicago
    0:43:21 credit card, it
    0:43:22 would be issued by
    0:43:22 MBNA.
    0:43:24 Arnold Schwarzenegger
    0:43:24 credit card, whatever
    0:43:25 you wanted.
    0:43:28 So MBNA was a
    0:43:29 huge operator in
    0:43:29 Delaware.
    0:43:32 And at one time,
    0:43:33 Biden was teased.
    0:43:34 They teased him by
    0:43:35 saying he was the
    0:43:36 senator from MBNA and
    0:43:38 he reacted very badly
    0:43:39 and said, I’m not the
    0:43:40 senator from MBNA.
    0:43:42 It obviously rattled him
    0:43:43 and I think it rattled him
    0:43:44 because there was
    0:43:45 something to that.
    0:43:48 If you could sit down
    0:43:49 with Joe Biden and do
    0:43:51 a postscript to this
    0:43:52 book, he is after all
    0:43:52 the president of the
    0:43:53 United States.
    0:43:54 He is after all from
    0:43:56 the state that is the
    0:43:57 focus of this book,
    0:43:59 which has a lot of
    0:44:00 critical elements.
    0:44:01 What are the first few
    0:44:02 questions you’d want to
    0:44:02 ask him?
    0:44:04 Are you an American
    0:44:04 citizen?
    0:44:05 I’m not.
    0:44:06 I’m not.
    0:44:07 Okay, so they can’t even
    0:44:08 take that away from you.
    0:44:09 You’re free to say
    0:44:09 anything.
    0:44:10 Well, I’ve got a green
    0:44:12 card, so hang on a
    0:44:12 second.
    0:44:14 I bet I could get you a
    0:44:15 green card in Delaware
    0:44:16 in like five minutes.
    0:44:18 That’s right.
    0:44:20 So I think he would say
    0:44:22 that the reason that it’s
    0:44:24 in Delaware, this is the
    0:44:26 location of the experts.
    0:44:27 We have built an
    0:44:27 expertise.
    0:44:29 Illinois, you know, you
    0:44:30 grow corn.
    0:44:31 This is what we do.
    0:44:33 So this goes back to
    0:44:33 David Ricardo.
    0:44:35 This is what places do.
    0:44:36 Specialization.
    0:44:37 Exactly.
    0:44:38 Yeah.
    0:44:39 You make wool.
    0:44:40 I make textiles.
    0:44:42 Somebody else has salt.
    0:44:43 Yeah.
    0:44:44 We launder money.
    0:44:44 That’s what we do.
    0:44:45 No, I’m just kidding.
    0:44:47 What we do is provide
    0:44:50 excellent legal expertise
    0:44:52 to companies around the
    0:44:52 world.
    0:44:53 You know what?
    0:44:54 They’re not wrong.
    0:44:56 I don’t have any beef with
    0:44:57 that particular aspect of
    0:44:58 what they do.
    0:44:59 It’s not like I want to
    0:45:00 shut down the
    0:45:01 Chancery Court.
    0:45:02 It definitely has its
    0:45:03 place in corporate
    0:45:03 America.
    0:45:05 And there’s no doubt that
    0:45:07 the expertise is there.
    0:45:09 I just think that the way
    0:45:10 that the experts are just
    0:45:12 given free reign is not
    0:45:14 democratic and it’s not
    0:45:14 transparent.
    0:45:16 You know, one of the
    0:45:17 hard things about writing
    0:45:18 this book is nothing is
    0:45:18 broken.
    0:45:20 And I don’t really want to
    0:45:21 break it.
    0:45:22 I just want to, you know,
    0:45:23 let a little bit of
    0:45:24 sunlight in.
    0:45:29 That was Hal Weitzman, author
    0:45:31 of What’s the Matter with
    0:45:31 Delaware?
    0:45:33 How the first state has
    0:45:34 favored the rich, powerful,
    0:45:36 and criminal, and how it
    0:45:37 costs us all.
    0:45:39 And that’s it for today’s
    0:45:40 episode.
    0:45:40 I’d love to know what you
    0:45:42 thought of it or any of our
    0:45:42 episodes.
    0:45:44 Our email is radio at
    0:45:46 Freakonomics dot com, or you
    0:45:48 can leave a review on any
    0:45:49 podcast app.
    0:45:50 We will be back very soon with
    0:45:51 a new episode.
    0:45:53 Until then, take care of
    0:45:53 yourself.
    0:45:55 And if you can, someone
    0:45:55 else too.
    0:45:57 Freakonomics Radio is
    0:45:58 produced by Stitcher and
    0:45:59 Renbud Radio.
    0:46:01 This episode was produced by
    0:46:02 Ryan Kelly and updated by
    0:46:03 Dalvin Abuaji.
    0:46:05 It was mixed by Jasmine
    0:46:05 Klinger.
    0:46:07 The Freakonomics Radio network
    0:46:08 staff also includes Alina
    0:46:09 Cullman, Augusta Chapman,
    0:46:11 Eleanor Osborne, Ellen
    0:46:12 Frankman, Elsa Hernandez,
    0:46:14 Gabriel Roth, Greg Rippon,
    0:46:15 Jeremy Johnston, Morgan
    0:46:17 Levy, Sarah Lilly, Teo
    0:46:18 Jacobs, and Zach Lipinski.
    0:46:20 You can find our entire
    0:46:22 archive on any podcast app,
    0:46:23 also at Freakonomics dot
    0:46:24 com, where we publish
    0:46:25 transcripts and show notes.
    0:46:27 Our theme song is Mr.
    0:46:29 Fortune by the Hitchhikers,
    0:46:31 and our composer is Luis
    0:46:31 Guerra.
    0:46:33 As always, thank you for
    0:46:33 listening.
    0:46:42 Are you asking me to give you
    0:46:44 advice on how to launder
    0:46:44 money?
    0:46:45 Sure.
    0:46:51 The Freakonomics Radio
    0:46:51 Network.
    0:46:53 The hidden side of
    0:46:53 everything.
    0:46:58 Stitcher.

    Until recently, Delaware was almost universally agreed to be the best place for companies to incorporate. Now, with Elon Musk leading a corporate stampede out of the First State, we revisit an episode from 2023 that asked if Delaware’s “franchise” is wildly corrupt, wildly efficient … or both?

     

    • SOURCES:
      • John Cassara, retired Special Agent detailee to the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Terrorism Finance and Financial Intelligence.
      • Doneene Damon, director with Richards, Layton, and Finger.
      • Travis Laster, Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery.
      • Dan Nielson, professor of government at the University of Texas.
      • Hal Weitzman, professor of behavioral science, editor-in-chief of Chicago Booth Review, and executive director for intellectual capital at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.

     

     

  • I went bankrupt…now I own a billion dollar portfolio

    AI transcript
    0:00:03 10 years ago, this guy owned $0 of real estate,
    0:00:05 and today he’s got a portfolio
    0:00:06 of about a billion and a half dollars.
    0:00:08 And he did that with no outside investors,
    0:00:10 just starting from scratch,
    0:00:11 one property after another,
    0:00:13 flipping, flipping, flipping, compounding
    0:00:15 until he built a billion dollar portfolio.
    0:00:17 He’s also my brother-in-law,
    0:00:18 and I’ve known the guy for 10 plus years.
    0:00:20 I’ve been asking him to come on the podcast,
    0:00:22 and he likes to keep a low profile,
    0:00:24 but finally he agreed to come on and tell his story.
    0:00:25 And the story’s a little bit crazy.
    0:00:27 He started off as a broker,
    0:00:29 ends up making a few million dollars
    0:00:30 doing deals as a broker,
    0:00:33 and then gets caught holding the bag
    0:00:34 when one of his clients,
    0:00:37 I don’t want to say screws him over,
    0:00:38 but leaves him holding the bag.
    0:00:40 And he ends up $15 million in debt.
    0:00:41 And instead of declaring bankruptcy,
    0:00:44 he decides to try to pay it all back,
    0:00:45 piece by piece by piece.
    0:00:47 He does, he pays it all back,
    0:00:48 and he ends up with a billion dollar
    0:00:49 plus real estate portfolio
    0:00:51 using a very specific strategy.
    0:00:53 So in this episode, I asked him how he did it,
    0:00:54 to tell that story,
    0:00:56 and to explain the strategy
    0:00:57 and his approach to real estate,
    0:00:58 because it’s a little bit different than anybody else.
    0:01:00 So enjoy this episode with my brother-in-law,
    0:01:01 Sanjeev,
    0:01:03 aka the Rhino of real estate.
    0:01:14 All right, my brother, we’re here.
    0:01:15 Your story’s a rollercoaster.
    0:01:17 You have crazy highs,
    0:01:21 complete lows where you lose it all,
    0:01:25 and then rebuild back up 20 times bigger than the first time.
    0:01:26 So I want to go into that story.
    0:01:29 So today, you are sitting here,
    0:01:31 you’ve got a collection of real estate assets
    0:01:32 that you’ve built up over the last 10 years.
    0:01:35 That’s now how big, roughly?
    0:01:36 A little about a billion and a half in total.
    0:01:37 Billion and a half.
    0:01:39 So 1.5 billion today.
    0:01:41 And that’s really in kind of just a decade.
    0:01:44 So I want to go through the steps of how you got there.
    0:01:45 So where did the career start?
    0:01:47 You know, in the name of the podcast,
    0:01:48 My First Million, right?
    0:01:48 Right.
    0:01:49 How you made your first million.
    0:01:50 Yeah.
    0:01:51 I, you know, for me, it started,
    0:01:53 I went to law school, did an MBA.
    0:01:54 Did you plan to be a lawyer?
    0:01:55 You thought?
    0:01:57 I was full on set on being a lawyer.
    0:01:58 You know, I went to law school,
    0:02:00 worked for a very famous lawyer,
    0:02:02 Mark Garagos out of LA.
    0:02:05 We were working the Scott Peterson case.
    0:02:06 And it was very intriguing,
    0:02:07 you know, in criminal law.
    0:02:10 When I met my, my now wife or my wife,
    0:02:13 she was very much me against me being a lawyer.
    0:02:16 For some reason, she was always programmed that,
    0:02:17 you know, you’re going to, you’re going to,
    0:02:19 you’re going to do certain things to win cases.
    0:02:20 So we’d always talked about, you know,
    0:02:22 I’m going to work for a lawyer for five years
    0:02:23 and then I’m getting real estate.
    0:02:23 Okay.
    0:02:25 She goes, why do you need to,
    0:02:27 why do you need to work for five years?
    0:02:28 Why don’t you just do it?
    0:02:30 You know, me thinking, I’m like, oh, wow,
    0:02:31 that’s a different thought.
    0:02:32 I don’t have a good answer to that.
    0:02:34 You know, so I ended up opening
    0:02:36 a real estate broker’s office,
    0:02:38 went back to my hometown where I grew up,
    0:02:40 town called Modesto and opened up this,
    0:02:44 you know, real estate, just broker’s license.
    0:02:47 And I had a small hundred foot office and a phone.
    0:02:50 Start calling people, trying to understand the market.
    0:02:52 And really, I think my first high came
    0:02:54 when I sold my first building.
    0:02:56 I called someone and actually,
    0:02:57 I needed to grow my office.
    0:02:58 And I called this person.
    0:03:00 I said, hey, what if I lease your office?
    0:03:01 Will you let me sell your office?
    0:03:04 He said, yes, if you lease it, I’ll let you sell it.
    0:03:05 So if you become a tenant,
    0:03:06 you could be the broker.
    0:03:07 You got it.
    0:03:09 I never had a minute.
    0:03:11 Was that planned or it just happened to be that way?
    0:03:12 No, I don’t know if it was planned.
    0:03:13 It was kind of just like, you know,
    0:03:16 sometimes you never ask, you never know, right?
    0:03:16 Right.
    0:03:18 And so at that moment I had asked,
    0:03:19 it was an older couple
    0:03:21 and I sold the building for them quite fast
    0:03:23 and I made 60 grand.
    0:03:25 And from there I started, you know,
    0:03:27 doing real estate brokers.
    0:03:28 I started understanding
    0:03:31 and I started meeting different tenants in retail.
    0:03:33 You know, I was working for Jack in the Box, AutoZone,
    0:03:36 DPRCO, different tenants that I would help
    0:03:37 get them spaces for.
    0:03:40 Now tell me, because today you’re a real estate developer,
    0:03:42 but it’s interesting, you started as a broker.
    0:03:45 I think many brokers want to become developers
    0:03:49 and it rarely gets to the scale that you got to, right?
    0:03:50 What were you like as a broker?
    0:03:52 Are you just dialing for dollars?
    0:03:52 What were you doing?
    0:03:55 I mean, yeah, gosh, man, I would be knocking on doors.
    0:03:56 I’d be calling.
    0:03:58 You know, I learned early on
    0:03:59 that if you don’t ask, you don’t get, right?
    0:04:02 And so it was no real like shame in my game.
    0:04:04 It was kind of like, you know, it was just like,
    0:04:05 hey, I’ll ask.
    0:04:10 And so, you know, oftentimes we’d be going to anywhere,
    0:04:11 whether we go to an Indian party,
    0:04:12 whether we go anywhere, I was growing up.
    0:04:13 What do you do?
    0:04:14 How do you do it?
    0:04:16 Oh, you own, you’re a doctor.
    0:04:18 Oh, you own this office building.
    0:04:19 Would you ever sell it?
    0:04:19 Right.
    0:04:20 No, but I’ll lease it.
    0:04:21 Great.
    0:04:22 I’ll take on the leasing business.
    0:04:24 Anything to, anything at that point
    0:04:27 to build up my CV or resume up
    0:04:29 of things that I was able to get done.
    0:04:29 Right.
    0:04:33 And so I fell kind of into a deal
    0:04:35 with a jack-in-the-box operator.
    0:04:37 And, you know, this person was probably
    0:04:39 the first person in my life that ever,
    0:04:41 you know, I would call, I thought was a mentor
    0:04:43 or even like a father figure.
    0:04:43 Okay.
    0:04:45 My dad was a little bit different
    0:04:48 and I kind of drank the Kool-Aid.
    0:04:50 And so I started doing really well
    0:04:51 because what would happen is
    0:04:52 I’d have this relationship
    0:04:54 with these jack-in-the-box guys
    0:04:55 and I’d know where they want to go.
    0:04:57 I didn’t have the money to do it myself
    0:04:59 because I was just starting out.
    0:05:00 So what I would do is
    0:05:02 I would basically do development in a box.
    0:05:05 I would go and I would find the property.
    0:05:06 I’d get the tenant
    0:05:08 and I’d go to another developer
    0:05:09 and I’d say,
    0:05:11 hey, give me the buy, sale, lease commission.
    0:05:13 Give me all three.
    0:05:14 I’ll manage the process for you.
    0:05:16 Then as time went on,
    0:05:18 I started to manage their construction process.
    0:05:20 I didn’t have the money to do it,
    0:05:21 but I was doing it.
    0:05:24 And that went really well for me
    0:05:27 until the jack-in-the-box operator,
    0:05:29 you know, basically didn’t pay their payroll taxes,
    0:05:31 you know, kind of fell in dire straits.
    0:05:34 And, you know, a week before,
    0:05:35 maybe let’s say three days before
    0:05:37 we’re supposed to close a big deal
    0:05:39 and I was going to make my first 10 million,
    0:05:41 not even my first million.
    0:05:42 Just on the commissions
    0:05:44 from the buy, sell, lease side?
    0:05:45 So what had happened was
    0:05:46 we started buying property
    0:05:49 with these guys buying it.
    0:05:50 So in essence, we would buy it,
    0:05:51 we’d do all the work
    0:05:53 and then they would buy it later on
    0:05:54 using their lines of credits.
    0:05:54 Right.
    0:05:56 And so what happened was
    0:05:58 this person that we were developing for
    0:06:00 was the largest jack-in-the-box franchisee
    0:06:00 in Sacramento.
    0:06:02 And then what ended up happening was
    0:06:03 they didn’t pay their payroll taxes.
    0:06:04 But you had bought it on spec
    0:06:06 thinking this guy’s,
    0:06:07 he’s good for it.
    0:06:08 He’ll take it off me.
    0:06:09 Yeah.
    0:06:10 And I still remember, it’s funny,
    0:06:11 I would sit there at night
    0:06:13 and, you know, there’s an old rule that,
    0:06:13 you know, people said,
    0:06:14 never count your money.
    0:06:15 But man, I would be looking
    0:06:16 at that sheet every night.
    0:06:17 Yeah, baby.
    0:06:19 Let’s go.
    0:06:21 You know, because you’re taking a big risk.
    0:06:21 Yeah.
    0:06:22 You know, at that time,
    0:06:23 I didn’t understand the risk.
    0:06:25 But, you know, it was a big risk.
    0:06:26 I look back now and I say,
    0:06:27 wow, that was, you know,
    0:06:30 I think I borrowed like $15 million.
    0:06:31 How were you able to borrow
    0:06:32 $15 million at the time?
    0:06:34 I mean, it was all private lending.
    0:06:36 You know, I went to private lenders.
    0:06:38 You know, when you come out of school,
    0:06:40 you get a W-2 or 1099.
    0:06:40 I was 1099.
    0:06:41 I was a broker.
    0:06:43 Banks didn’t underwrite it.
    0:06:43 Right.
    0:06:44 The banks looked at it and said,
    0:06:47 oh, you went from this to this?
    0:06:47 Wow.
    0:06:49 We don’t understand.
    0:06:50 We can’t understand this.
    0:06:50 We don’t understand it.
    0:06:51 Right.
    0:06:52 And so, you know,
    0:06:53 as they don’t understand it,
    0:06:53 then all of a sudden,
    0:06:54 you know, you’re like,
    0:06:55 oh, okay, well,
    0:06:57 where’s my options?
    0:06:59 And so we had, you know,
    0:07:01 we had everything kind of lined up
    0:07:02 and, you know,
    0:07:03 literally three days before
    0:07:04 we’re supposed to close
    0:07:07 and we were getting ready to close
    0:07:08 and, you know,
    0:07:09 this person’s not on their phone.
    0:07:11 This person would talk to me daily.
    0:07:12 They would call me.
    0:07:13 They were the first person in my life
    0:07:14 to ever call me son.
    0:07:14 Right.
    0:07:15 You know, I was,
    0:07:17 I drank the Kool-Aid harder than anybody.
    0:07:19 And then, you know,
    0:07:20 this happened where they,
    0:07:22 where they ended up getting in trouble
    0:07:23 and, you know, kaput.
    0:07:25 The deals kind of got soft.
    0:07:26 Right.
    0:07:27 How many did you have?
    0:07:28 It was 10 total.
    0:07:29 So you committed to 10.
    0:07:31 You borrowed almost $15 million.
    0:07:33 You’re ready to make
    0:07:34 your first 10 million bucks.
    0:07:36 You’re looking at the sheet every night.
    0:07:37 Three days before,
    0:07:39 the guy gets popped
    0:07:40 for whatever he was doing
    0:07:42 outside of what you guys
    0:07:42 were doing together.
    0:07:43 Yeah.
    0:07:45 And now you owe this money.
    0:07:46 And there’s no way out
    0:07:47 because you signed it.
    0:07:49 You’re under contract, basically.
    0:07:50 No, we bought the property
    0:07:51 and we owed the debt.
    0:07:52 You sent him the money.
    0:07:52 Yeah, all right.
    0:07:54 We spent the money.
    0:07:54 It was there.
    0:07:55 And so, you know,
    0:07:56 I still remember, you know,
    0:07:58 and this is where the lows start, right?
    0:07:59 I still remember, you know,
    0:08:00 going home to my wife
    0:08:01 and, you know,
    0:08:03 three days I cried.
    0:08:04 You know, literally crying.
    0:08:06 Grown man, just like tears
    0:08:07 coming out of my eyes.
    0:08:09 And my wife says,
    0:08:09 you know, look,
    0:08:10 you always like to work out, Sanjeev.
    0:08:12 Like, go to the gym.
    0:08:13 Get out of the house.
    0:08:14 Go to the gym.
    0:08:17 And so, normally I used to go to the gym
    0:08:19 at like 9, 10 o’clock at night.
    0:08:21 And there’d be two, three guys
    0:08:22 in there, you work out.
    0:08:22 You know, the gym was always
    0:08:23 an interesting atmosphere
    0:08:25 because you have no clue
    0:08:26 who the other guy is.
    0:08:26 Right.
    0:08:28 He could be, you know, homeless.
    0:08:28 He could be a billionaire.
    0:08:30 You know, but he asks you,
    0:08:31 hey, what do you do in the gym?
    0:08:31 Right.
    0:08:32 Hey, bro, let me,
    0:08:34 can I get a spot?
    0:08:34 Let me help you out.
    0:08:36 So, there was a guy
    0:08:37 I used to work out with
    0:08:38 at nighttime
    0:08:39 and there’d be very few of us
    0:08:39 in the gym.
    0:08:40 And so, we would always say,
    0:08:41 hey, how are you?
    0:08:42 We’d talk about life.
    0:08:42 But we had,
    0:08:44 I generally had no clue
    0:08:44 who he was
    0:08:45 or what he did.
    0:08:46 And so,
    0:08:49 this random day we walk in,
    0:08:50 I walk in the gym
    0:08:51 at 2 o’clock
    0:08:52 and this guy’s standing
    0:08:53 behind the front desk.
    0:08:55 I look at him
    0:08:55 and I say,
    0:08:57 what are you doing, Dave,
    0:08:57 behind the desk?
    0:08:59 He said,
    0:09:00 oh, come into my office.
    0:09:01 You got an office here?
    0:09:02 So, he was a manager?
    0:09:03 He owned the place?
    0:09:04 He owned the place.
    0:09:04 He was the owner
    0:09:05 and he’s actually said,
    0:09:06 hey, I’m trying
    0:09:06 to sell this place.
    0:09:09 All right.
    0:09:09 So, I’ve built
    0:09:10 a few companies
    0:09:11 that have made
    0:09:13 a few million dollars a year
    0:09:13 and I’ve built
    0:09:14 two companies
    0:09:15 that have made
    0:09:15 tens of millions
    0:09:16 of dollars a year.
    0:09:17 And so,
    0:09:17 I have a little bit
    0:09:18 of experience
    0:09:19 launching,
    0:09:19 building,
    0:09:21 creating new things.
    0:09:23 And I actually
    0:09:23 don’t come up
    0:09:24 with a lot of
    0:09:25 original ideas.
    0:09:25 Instead,
    0:09:26 what I’m really,
    0:09:27 really good at,
    0:09:29 what my skill set is,
    0:09:30 is researching
    0:09:31 different ideas,
    0:09:32 different gaps
    0:09:32 in the market
    0:09:34 and reverse engineering
    0:09:34 companies.
    0:09:35 And I didn’t invent
    0:09:36 this, by the way.
    0:09:36 We had this guy,
    0:09:37 Brad Jacobs.
    0:09:37 We talked to him
    0:09:38 on the podcast.
    0:09:39 He started like
    0:09:39 four or five
    0:09:40 different publicly
    0:09:40 traded companies
    0:09:41 worth tens of
    0:09:41 billions of dollars each.
    0:09:43 He actually is the one
    0:09:43 who I learned
    0:09:44 how to do this from.
    0:09:45 And so,
    0:09:46 with the team at HubSpot,
    0:09:47 we put together
    0:09:48 all of my research
    0:09:49 tactics,
    0:09:49 frameworks,
    0:09:50 techniques
    0:09:51 on spotting
    0:09:52 different opportunities
    0:09:53 in the market,
    0:09:54 reverse engineering
    0:09:54 companies,
    0:09:55 and figuring out
    0:09:56 exactly where
    0:09:57 opportunities are
    0:09:58 versus just coming up
    0:09:59 with a random silly idea
    0:10:00 and throwing it
    0:10:00 against the wall
    0:10:01 and hoping that it sticks.
    0:10:02 And so,
    0:10:03 if you want to see
    0:10:03 my framework,
    0:10:05 you can check it out.
    0:10:05 The link is below.
    0:10:06 in the YouTube description.
    0:10:09 I grew up bodybuilding
    0:10:10 at a young age
    0:10:11 and so I was always,
    0:10:11 you know,
    0:10:12 very fascinated
    0:10:13 by the fitness business.
    0:10:14 I was a trainer
    0:10:15 when I was in college
    0:10:16 and, you know,
    0:10:16 for me,
    0:10:17 it was like,
    0:10:18 oh my gosh,
    0:10:18 you know,
    0:10:19 and I asked him,
    0:10:19 I said,
    0:10:20 does it make money?
    0:10:21 And he says,
    0:10:22 yeah,
    0:10:23 it nets $30,000 a month.
    0:10:24 Oh,
    0:10:25 quickly I’m starting
    0:10:25 to think,
    0:10:25 all right,
    0:10:27 I can do my real estate,
    0:10:28 I can buy this gym,
    0:10:29 I can do all these things.
    0:10:30 This is still
    0:10:30 while you’re on the hook
    0:10:31 for the jack-in-the-boxes.
    0:10:32 I am all the way
    0:10:32 on the hook.
    0:10:36 And how long
    0:10:36 of a period
    0:10:37 did you have
    0:10:37 to like,
    0:10:38 kind of resolve this?
    0:10:39 What was your plan?
    0:10:40 You’re going to start
    0:10:40 opening up jack-in-the-boxes?
    0:10:41 What were you going to do?
    0:10:43 I couldn’t open up jack-in-the-boxes
    0:10:44 because I went to
    0:10:45 jack-in-the-box corporate
    0:10:46 and I had recorded
    0:10:46 a deed restriction
    0:10:47 on these properties.
    0:10:48 So basically,
    0:10:49 I recorded something
    0:10:50 before closing.
    0:10:50 Again,
    0:10:51 you learn later on in life.
    0:10:52 Right.
    0:10:52 Never do that,
    0:10:53 but you know,
    0:10:56 and so I was kind of stuck
    0:10:56 with this.
    0:10:57 It could only be that.
    0:10:58 It could only be that.
    0:10:59 And that was what the,
    0:11:00 it was a random deed restriction
    0:11:01 that we had created
    0:11:03 and I couldn’t get it off
    0:11:04 because the guy was still alive.
    0:11:05 Yeah.
    0:11:06 So I couldn’t quit claiming
    0:11:07 I couldn’t do certain things.
    0:11:08 It was kind of a
    0:11:09 very unique situation.
    0:11:10 Right.
    0:11:11 And so,
    0:11:11 you know,
    0:11:12 so in essence,
    0:11:13 I bought the gyms
    0:11:14 to pay for my real estate.
    0:11:15 And then,
    0:11:16 you know,
    0:11:17 the first month in,
    0:11:18 you know,
    0:11:18 I still remember.
    0:11:19 Wait,
    0:11:19 so how’d you buy the gym?
    0:11:20 So the guy says,
    0:11:22 it’s netting 30 grand a month.
    0:11:22 The guy says,
    0:11:23 I’m netting 30 grand a month.
    0:11:24 I need to get out of this.
    0:11:25 He says,
    0:11:25 you know,
    0:11:27 I have a big tax bill
    0:11:28 so I don’t want to get paid up front.
    0:11:29 How about you
    0:11:30 take it on
    0:11:31 and pay me over time?
    0:11:32 Okay.
    0:11:32 Oh,
    0:11:33 okay.
    0:11:33 Pay an installment.
    0:11:34 It’s perfect.
    0:11:34 All right.
    0:11:35 I went home.
    0:11:36 I asked my wife.
    0:11:36 I said,
    0:11:37 you know,
    0:11:37 hey,
    0:11:37 I want to buy the gym
    0:11:38 we work out at.
    0:11:39 And she laughed,
    0:11:39 you know,
    0:11:40 no way.
    0:11:41 And then 30 days later,
    0:11:41 sure enough,
    0:11:43 we bought the gym.
    0:11:43 Right.
    0:11:44 And needless to say,
    0:11:45 she doesn’t laugh at anything
    0:11:46 I tell her we’re going to do now.
    0:11:47 She’s,
    0:11:47 you know,
    0:11:48 so about the gym
    0:11:49 and 30 days in,
    0:11:50 you know,
    0:11:51 I go to the bookkeeper
    0:11:51 and I’m like,
    0:11:52 hey,
    0:11:52 where’s my check?
    0:11:53 Yeah.
    0:11:54 Where’s the 30 grand?
    0:11:55 Where’s the money at?
    0:11:55 Let’s go.
    0:11:57 And she says,
    0:11:57 actually,
    0:11:58 you need to write a check
    0:11:59 for $22,000.
    0:12:00 I said,
    0:12:00 what?
    0:12:02 $22,000?
    0:12:03 How?
    0:12:04 Right.
    0:12:05 I was going to make 30,
    0:12:06 at least give me 15.
    0:12:07 You know,
    0:12:08 and so she just,
    0:12:09 she showed me how.
    0:12:10 Did you not diligence
    0:12:11 the thing at the time?
    0:12:11 I didn’t understand
    0:12:13 how to read a profit,
    0:12:14 a profit and loss.
    0:12:15 There’s a difference
    0:12:16 between cash and accrual
    0:12:17 and all these things
    0:12:18 that you show
    0:12:18 and,
    0:12:19 you know,
    0:12:20 he had slimmed it down
    0:12:21 not to show every manager.
    0:12:21 Right.
    0:12:22 He showed it,
    0:12:23 you know,
    0:12:23 and not in a bad way.
    0:12:24 He just showed it the way
    0:12:25 that it could have been.
    0:12:25 He saw it.
    0:12:26 Yeah.
    0:12:27 It was what he saw.
    0:12:28 It wasn’t what was actually there.
    0:12:30 And how old are you
    0:12:30 at this time,
    0:12:30 roughly?
    0:12:31 I am 28.
    0:12:32 This is 2008.
    0:12:34 And there was a period of time,
    0:12:35 so the way my wife
    0:12:35 tells the story,
    0:12:36 so we’re brother,
    0:12:37 you’re my brother-in-law.
    0:12:38 The way my wife
    0:12:38 tells the story is
    0:12:40 you start dating her sister.
    0:12:41 Yep.
    0:12:42 And you’re this guy
    0:12:43 that comes out of nowhere.
    0:12:45 You are like
    0:12:47 this hotshot real estate guy,
    0:12:48 young, right?
    0:12:49 Like I think you were pretty-
    0:12:50 25, 26.
    0:12:51 You were 25, 26
    0:12:52 and you were making
    0:12:52 millions of dollars
    0:12:52 as a broker,
    0:12:54 which is not common,
    0:12:54 correct?
    0:12:55 Like you must have been
    0:12:56 a top, top performer.
    0:12:57 Is that fair?
    0:12:57 I mean, I don’t know much
    0:12:58 about the broker world.
    0:12:59 Yeah, at that time I was.
    0:12:59 I mean, you know.
    0:13:01 And you’re buying her nice gifts
    0:13:03 and you’re living this great life.
    0:13:04 And when the jack-of-the-box thing
    0:13:04 happened,
    0:13:05 at some point,
    0:13:06 I don’t know if you’ve got
    0:13:07 to this part of the story,
    0:13:08 at some point you’re like,
    0:13:09 you have to move back in
    0:13:11 to the parents’ house.
    0:13:12 You have to move back
    0:13:13 into your childhood bedroom.
    0:13:13 Has that already happened
    0:13:14 or am I jumping the gun?
    0:13:15 No, this actually,
    0:13:16 so what happened was,
    0:13:17 you know, basically,
    0:13:18 you know,
    0:13:19 long story short,
    0:13:20 we’re paying for the real estate.
    0:13:22 I have to go become
    0:13:24 the general manager of the store
    0:13:25 and we didn’t have enough money
    0:13:26 to pay everybody
    0:13:27 so my wife ends up
    0:13:29 becoming the Zumba instructor.
    0:13:31 I didn’t know this.
    0:13:33 And so she’s teaching like,
    0:13:33 you know,
    0:13:34 she must have been teaching
    0:13:35 30, 40 classes a week,
    0:13:36 maybe more.
    0:13:37 Oh my God.
    0:13:38 And she was great at it
    0:13:39 but, you know,
    0:13:40 we’re just at the gym
    0:13:40 all day long
    0:13:41 and in order to pay
    0:13:42 for our stuff,
    0:13:42 you know,
    0:13:44 we went from a Range Rover
    0:13:44 to a Ford Fusion.
    0:13:45 Right.
    0:13:48 And we got out of our house
    0:13:48 to pay for,
    0:13:49 again,
    0:13:49 we’re paying the bills.
    0:13:50 We were always like,
    0:13:51 let’s pay.
    0:13:51 Right.
    0:13:53 And so we then ended up
    0:13:56 at my childhood high school room
    0:13:57 and I still remember this
    0:13:58 the first night
    0:14:00 and my wife was
    0:14:00 a little bit upset.
    0:14:01 You know,
    0:14:02 we went from this standard
    0:14:02 down to this,
    0:14:03 you know,
    0:14:03 naturally,
    0:14:04 you know,
    0:14:06 it was a very big
    0:14:06 culture shock,
    0:14:07 right?
    0:14:08 And what I didn’t tell you
    0:14:09 was that in order for us
    0:14:10 to buy the gyms
    0:14:12 and not a lot of people know,
    0:14:13 I had to come up
    0:14:14 with a little down.
    0:14:16 My wife pawned her wedding ring
    0:14:18 for us to buy the gyms.
    0:14:20 So she’s a ride or die.
    0:14:21 When you talk about
    0:14:22 a ride or die,
    0:14:23 like that girl’s been
    0:14:24 with me through it all.
    0:14:25 And so,
    0:14:25 by the way,
    0:14:26 are these,
    0:14:27 because I know her
    0:14:28 but I don’t know her
    0:14:29 back then,
    0:14:31 her idea,
    0:14:31 your idea,
    0:14:32 you’re like,
    0:14:32 hey,
    0:14:32 you know,
    0:14:34 if only there was a way
    0:14:35 we could come up
    0:14:35 with this one,
    0:14:36 how did that conversation go?
    0:14:37 I gotta know.
    0:14:38 It was definitely
    0:14:39 not her idea.
    0:14:40 But,
    0:14:40 you know,
    0:14:41 she got on board
    0:14:42 with it fairly fast
    0:14:44 and she understood
    0:14:46 that if we fail,
    0:14:47 we fail together
    0:14:49 and if we feast,
    0:14:49 we feast together.
    0:14:50 Right.
    0:14:51 And so,
    0:14:51 you know,
    0:14:51 at that point
    0:14:52 we were a feast
    0:14:52 or famine,
    0:14:52 right?
    0:14:53 We’re either gonna be able
    0:14:54 to try to figure out
    0:14:55 how to eat
    0:14:56 or we’re starving here.
    0:14:57 And,
    0:14:57 you know,
    0:14:58 and in life,
    0:14:58 you know,
    0:14:59 it was a big up
    0:15:00 and a big down
    0:15:00 because,
    0:15:00 you know,
    0:15:01 you’re 27,
    0:15:02 we’re driving
    0:15:03 a brand new Range Rover,
    0:15:03 we’re living
    0:15:04 in an $800,000 house.
    0:15:06 This is amazing,
    0:15:06 you know,
    0:15:07 she’s got a nice fancy,
    0:15:09 and everything
    0:15:09 on the outside
    0:15:10 looked great.
    0:15:11 On the inside,
    0:15:12 we owe all these people money.
    0:15:14 Who do you go to,
    0:15:14 by the way,
    0:15:15 when this stuff’s going down?
    0:15:16 Because you didn’t,
    0:15:17 you’re not a big mentor,
    0:15:18 network guy,
    0:15:19 like you’ve always been
    0:15:20 a lone wolf
    0:15:21 as long as I’ve known you,
    0:15:21 really.
    0:15:23 When shit’s hitting the fan,
    0:15:24 obviously you’re telling your wife,
    0:15:25 but how did you try
    0:15:26 to get out of the pickle?
    0:15:27 Because that’s an unbelievable
    0:15:28 amount of money to,
    0:15:28 oh,
    0:15:29 you owed $15 million.
    0:15:31 I mean,
    0:15:32 and you know,
    0:15:32 honestly,
    0:15:33 I was crying
    0:15:33 in the fetal position
    0:15:34 at home.
    0:15:35 My wife just literally said,
    0:15:36 get out of here.
    0:15:37 Get up.
    0:15:38 I have this story
    0:15:39 I tell my kids,
    0:15:41 the light bulb story,
    0:15:41 right?
    0:15:43 And what it is,
    0:15:44 is I’ll plug in a light bulb
    0:15:45 for my kids,
    0:15:45 a lamp,
    0:15:48 and I’ll just turn the bulb
    0:15:49 a hair,
    0:15:51 and the bulb turns off.
    0:15:53 And I ask my kids,
    0:15:53 I said,
    0:15:54 what does this mean to you?
    0:15:55 And my kids look at me,
    0:15:55 they’re young.
    0:15:56 Oh,
    0:15:56 I don’t know.
    0:15:58 It means that success
    0:15:59 is just this much far away.
    0:16:01 The difference between
    0:16:02 a successful light
    0:16:03 and a broken light
    0:16:05 is a hair.
    0:16:06 And so,
    0:16:07 I always had that
    0:16:08 kind of mentality
    0:16:09 that,
    0:16:09 you know,
    0:16:10 I’m almost there.
    0:16:11 I might have not
    0:16:12 always been there,
    0:16:13 but my mentality,
    0:16:14 oh,
    0:16:14 baby,
    0:16:15 I was let’s go.
    0:16:15 I mean,
    0:16:16 you know,
    0:16:16 that was,
    0:16:18 and so we lay down
    0:16:18 at night,
    0:16:19 and we turn the light off
    0:16:20 when we’re the first night back,
    0:16:21 and we look up,
    0:16:23 and in my age group,
    0:16:24 I’m a little older than you,
    0:16:25 we used to do these stars
    0:16:27 and like stickers
    0:16:28 on the ceiling.
    0:16:28 The glow in the dark.
    0:16:29 You turn it off,
    0:16:31 and the whole world appears,
    0:16:33 and we turn off the light,
    0:16:34 and we hadn’t stayed
    0:16:34 in this room for,
    0:16:35 you know,
    0:16:36 forever.
    0:16:36 We just,
    0:16:37 we had our own place,
    0:16:39 and we both just start
    0:16:40 laughing out loud,
    0:16:42 and I told her,
    0:16:42 you know,
    0:16:42 I said,
    0:16:43 give me nine months.
    0:16:45 Give me nine months,
    0:16:46 I’ll figure it out,
    0:16:47 and,
    0:16:48 you know,
    0:16:50 the switch kind of clicked
    0:16:51 for me then.
    0:16:52 You made a promise.
    0:16:53 I made a promise.
    0:16:54 I got to stick to it.
    0:16:55 You know,
    0:16:56 it’s almost like when people
    0:16:58 take a weight loss challenge.
    0:16:58 Right.
    0:16:58 Right.
    0:17:00 I’ve got a reason to do it.
    0:17:01 This is my timeline.
    0:17:02 Let’s do it.
    0:17:04 But you have no plan yet,
    0:17:05 or you have a plan,
    0:17:05 or not?
    0:17:05 Well,
    0:17:06 you know,
    0:17:07 I said I’m going to grow the gyms.
    0:17:08 Yeah.
    0:17:08 Right.
    0:17:11 We started to turn it around,
    0:17:12 the first one,
    0:17:13 and then we’re like,
    0:17:15 let’s open up a second one.
    0:17:16 And,
    0:17:17 you know,
    0:17:18 we ended up being able to
    0:17:20 build a second store.
    0:17:21 It took us a long time.
    0:17:22 It took us a little bit.
    0:17:23 It took us about a year.
    0:17:24 And,
    0:17:25 you know,
    0:17:27 we just started working harder.
    0:17:28 And honestly,
    0:17:28 like,
    0:17:29 I just,
    0:17:29 you know,
    0:17:30 I would go to the gym
    0:17:31 if we needed to pay a bill.
    0:17:32 I would go to the gym
    0:17:33 and sell memberships myself.
    0:17:34 I had some nights work
    0:17:35 till midnight,
    0:17:36 till we closed.
    0:17:36 You know,
    0:17:38 we were 24 hour in the first store,
    0:17:39 and so I would just,
    0:17:41 if I needed to get it,
    0:17:42 we had to go get it.
    0:17:44 And we lived very,
    0:17:44 very,
    0:17:45 you know,
    0:17:47 within our means.
    0:17:48 You know,
    0:17:48 we would,
    0:17:49 I still remember
    0:17:51 we would share food
    0:17:53 for probably about five years.
    0:17:54 We wouldn’t go anywhere
    0:17:55 and eat,
    0:17:55 you know,
    0:17:57 two meals.
    0:17:57 Right.
    0:17:58 There would be one meal
    0:17:59 she would eat,
    0:18:00 whatever’s left,
    0:18:00 I would eat.
    0:18:01 And,
    0:18:02 you know,
    0:18:03 and vice versa some nights,
    0:18:04 you know,
    0:18:04 don’t get me wrong.
    0:18:05 There was times when,
    0:18:06 you know,
    0:18:07 I ate first,
    0:18:08 but most of the time
    0:18:10 it was sharing
    0:18:10 and trying to get there.
    0:18:11 And so,
    0:18:12 as we started to build
    0:18:13 the gyms up,
    0:18:15 that’s when we started
    0:18:15 getting back to like,
    0:18:16 okay,
    0:18:17 we’re paying everybody,
    0:18:18 good things are happening,
    0:18:19 let’s go.
    0:18:20 Could you not just
    0:18:20 declare bankruptcy
    0:18:22 with the jack-in-the-box
    0:18:22 situation to at least
    0:18:24 get to zero again?
    0:18:25 I could have
    0:18:26 and that may have
    0:18:27 been the smarter path.
    0:18:28 You know,
    0:18:30 I went to law school,
    0:18:30 so,
    0:18:30 you know,
    0:18:31 my law school professor
    0:18:32 was always like,
    0:18:32 you know,
    0:18:33 bankruptcy is immoral.
    0:18:34 No,
    0:18:34 it’s not.
    0:18:35 Right.
    0:18:35 You know,
    0:18:36 but,
    0:18:36 but,
    0:18:36 you know,
    0:18:37 these thoughts
    0:18:37 are putting your head
    0:18:38 in life that,
    0:18:38 you know,
    0:18:39 you don’t know
    0:18:40 where it came from.
    0:18:40 By the way,
    0:18:41 spoiler here is,
    0:18:43 you end up creating,
    0:18:44 I think at one point,
    0:18:45 the largest gym chain
    0:18:46 in California,
    0:18:46 right?
    0:18:47 In Northern California.
    0:18:48 We were one of the largest,
    0:18:48 we were definitely
    0:18:50 the largest private operator.
    0:18:51 We didn’t have partners,
    0:18:52 so we ended up getting
    0:18:53 to 82 stores
    0:18:56 and we were growing
    0:18:56 the business
    0:18:57 and we had done
    0:18:58 some really smart moves
    0:18:59 along the way.
    0:19:00 I would option properties,
    0:19:01 which we can talk about
    0:19:03 and like do certain things
    0:19:03 in our leases
    0:19:05 that we just started learning
    0:19:06 and we built a great culture.
    0:19:08 We had almost 2,000 employees
    0:19:11 and it was a fun run.
    0:19:13 Cutting your sales cycle
    0:19:15 in half sounds pretty impossible,
    0:19:16 but that’s exactly
    0:19:17 what Sandler Training
    0:19:18 did with HubSpot.
    0:19:20 They used Breeze,
    0:19:21 HubSpot’s AI,
    0:19:22 tools to tailor
    0:19:24 every customer interaction
    0:19:24 without losing
    0:19:25 their personal touch
    0:19:27 and the results
    0:19:28 were incredible.
    0:19:28 Click-through rates
    0:19:30 jumped 25%.
    0:19:32 Qualified leads quadrupled
    0:19:33 and people spent
    0:19:34 three times longer
    0:19:35 on their landing pages.
    0:19:38 Go to HubSpot.com
    0:19:39 to see how Breeze
    0:19:40 can help your business grow.
    0:19:42 So the brick by brick
    0:19:43 is the first one,
    0:19:44 the guy basically says,
    0:19:45 pay me as you go,
    0:19:46 give me a little down payment.
    0:19:47 You pawn the wedding ring,
    0:19:48 you get the down payment.
    0:19:49 Yep.
    0:19:50 You turn that gym,
    0:19:51 you thought it was profitable,
    0:19:53 turns out it really wasn’t,
    0:19:54 the cash flow
    0:19:54 really wasn’t there.
    0:19:56 You start to squeeze it
    0:19:57 by working your ass off.
    0:19:57 Great.
    0:19:59 A year later,
    0:20:00 you get the second store.
    0:20:01 Give me a sense
    0:20:02 because I’ve never owned a gym.
    0:20:04 A gym like this,
    0:20:05 you know,
    0:20:06 what do they,
    0:20:07 what do they net?
    0:20:07 Like if I go to a,
    0:20:08 if I see a gym
    0:20:09 around the corner,
    0:20:10 I think these were
    0:20:11 Gold’s gyms at the time.
    0:20:12 Yeah, we went to five
    0:20:12 with Gold’s
    0:20:13 and then,
    0:20:14 and then you created
    0:20:14 your own concept.
    0:20:15 Then we created
    0:20:16 our own concept.
    0:20:17 So give me a typical,
    0:20:19 like a Gold’s gym.
    0:20:21 What do these things make?
    0:20:22 Revenue,
    0:20:23 profit roughly?
    0:20:24 I mean,
    0:20:25 it depends on the Gold’s gym.
    0:20:26 If you’re in Gold’s gym LA,
    0:20:28 which was kind of like the Mecca,
    0:20:29 they’re making
    0:20:30 eight to 10 million a store,
    0:20:31 you know,
    0:20:32 and the gym is-
    0:20:33 Revenue or?
    0:20:34 Gross revenue.
    0:20:34 I mean,
    0:20:35 gym is a fixed cost business.
    0:20:37 Once you’ve paid your employees
    0:20:37 and your rent,
    0:20:38 your lights,
    0:20:39 it doesn’t really go up,
    0:20:39 right?
    0:20:40 I mean,
    0:20:41 what may vary is if you do
    0:20:42 personal training,
    0:20:43 it may vary on certain services,
    0:20:45 but generally it’s a fixed cost business.
    0:20:46 So you want to get to
    0:20:48 a certain number of members
    0:20:49 and then after that,
    0:20:51 everything is profit.
    0:20:53 And so it’s a higher margin business.
    0:20:54 You know,
    0:20:54 most people,
    0:20:54 you know,
    0:20:55 gyms at one point
    0:20:57 were 40% profit margin.
    0:20:58 Now I’d probably say
    0:20:59 they’re closer to 20,
    0:21:01 25 because labor has increased
    0:21:03 and membership prices
    0:21:04 haven’t increased
    0:21:05 as much as maybe
    0:21:08 they could or should,
    0:21:09 but there’s also
    0:21:10 a lot of competition,
    0:21:10 right?
    0:21:12 There’s only so much pie
    0:21:14 in every corner
    0:21:15 or every other corner
    0:21:16 there’s gyms being opened up.
    0:21:17 So what did you figure out?
    0:21:19 What did you do differently
    0:21:20 that let you build
    0:21:22 this 82 store chain?
    0:21:23 Well,
    0:21:23 we started out
    0:21:24 as Gold’s Gym operators
    0:21:25 and,
    0:21:25 you know,
    0:21:27 we realized that Gold’s Gym
    0:21:28 was a bodybuilder model.
    0:21:28 You know,
    0:21:29 there was people
    0:21:29 that would come in the gym,
    0:21:30 they work out
    0:21:31 for three hours a day,
    0:21:33 heavy protein,
    0:21:33 you know,
    0:21:34 people are farting,
    0:21:36 sitting there for,
    0:21:36 you know.
    0:21:37 It might be the worst
    0:21:38 type of customer to have.
    0:21:38 Yeah,
    0:21:40 they abuse your weights
    0:21:40 and then,
    0:21:40 you know,
    0:21:41 but they use it,
    0:21:42 right?
    0:21:43 And then you look,
    0:21:43 you know,
    0:21:44 you start to look at this model
    0:21:45 called Planet Fitness
    0:21:46 where they’re signing up
    0:21:48 15,000 people
    0:21:49 at a low price
    0:21:50 and when we were
    0:21:51 in the gym business
    0:21:52 they were just coming up
    0:21:53 and so we went
    0:21:54 and saw one
    0:21:54 and we said,
    0:21:55 man,
    0:21:56 this is actually interesting.
    0:21:57 They were serving pizza
    0:21:58 and bagels,
    0:21:59 things that we just
    0:22:00 never even like understood
    0:22:01 like why.
    0:22:02 Now we understand
    0:22:03 it’s because people
    0:22:04 will come and eat pizza
    0:22:05 twice a month
    0:22:07 or every week
    0:22:07 and they’ll get
    0:22:09 their $9.99 worth.
    0:22:11 So they were smarter
    0:22:11 than most.
    0:22:12 They were already
    0:22:12 ahead of the game
    0:22:15 and we then started
    0:22:16 seeing other brands
    0:22:16 like we said,
    0:22:16 oh,
    0:22:16 well,
    0:22:17 Gold’s has some good stuff
    0:22:18 and so we started
    0:22:19 combining the models
    0:22:20 to create our own model
    0:22:22 and we created
    0:22:23 basically a large box
    0:22:24 high volume
    0:22:25 low price model
    0:22:26 with classes
    0:22:27 and group training
    0:22:28 and we basically
    0:22:29 combined Gold’s Gym
    0:22:29 and Orange Theory
    0:22:30 and a Planet Fitness
    0:22:31 all in one
    0:22:33 and in that process
    0:22:34 we started doing
    0:22:35 really well.
    0:22:36 Did you figure out
    0:22:37 any great insights
    0:22:38 along the way
    0:22:38 like,
    0:22:39 you know,
    0:22:40 my first business
    0:22:40 was a restaurant business
    0:22:41 and restaurant business
    0:22:42 location really,
    0:22:43 really matters.
    0:22:44 One thing we figured
    0:22:44 out very quickly
    0:22:46 was Chipotle spends,
    0:22:47 I don’t know,
    0:22:49 $40 million a year
    0:22:50 figuring out
    0:22:51 the best locations to be.
    0:22:52 You could just
    0:22:54 go to every,
    0:22:55 try to get next
    0:22:56 to every Chipotle
    0:22:57 is actually just like
    0:22:58 now you spend zero
    0:22:59 but you get the benefit
    0:23:00 of all of their
    0:23:01 location scouting,
    0:23:01 right?
    0:23:02 We figured out
    0:23:02 that you could look
    0:23:03 at the receipts
    0:23:04 and if you understood
    0:23:05 how to read the code
    0:23:06 you would know
    0:23:07 how many customers
    0:23:08 this Chipotle gets
    0:23:08 versus this one
    0:23:09 so I could even compare
    0:23:10 within that
    0:23:11 which location
    0:23:12 is better than the other,
    0:23:12 right?
    0:23:13 So like we started
    0:23:14 getting a little smarter
    0:23:14 about how to
    0:23:16 play the game better.
    0:23:17 Were there any moments
    0:23:17 like that for you
    0:23:18 in the gym business
    0:23:19 that you started
    0:23:19 to figure out
    0:23:20 maybe how to
    0:23:21 pick up members faster
    0:23:22 or, you know,
    0:23:23 how to take
    0:23:24 the average value
    0:23:24 of a customer
    0:23:25 from $10 a month
    0:23:27 to upsell them
    0:23:28 in some interesting way?
    0:23:29 Any good business
    0:23:29 insights from that?
    0:23:30 You know,
    0:23:30 what we did
    0:23:31 was we created
    0:23:32 a really unique
    0:23:33 referral mechanism
    0:23:34 and so what we did
    0:23:36 was we realized
    0:23:36 people love things
    0:23:37 for free,
    0:23:37 right?
    0:23:38 I mean,
    0:23:38 a lot of the people
    0:23:39 I’ve heard talk
    0:23:40 on your podcast
    0:23:40 is like,
    0:23:41 give them a deal
    0:23:41 that they can’t
    0:23:42 ever say no to.
    0:23:42 Right.
    0:23:44 And I think
    0:23:44 that’s always a great
    0:23:45 business tool
    0:23:46 of keeping the back
    0:23:46 of your mind
    0:23:47 and you’re starting
    0:23:48 anything or doing
    0:23:48 anything.
    0:23:49 So, you know,
    0:23:50 we created this,
    0:23:51 me and John,
    0:23:53 who’s my COO
    0:23:55 and like family to me,
    0:23:56 he’s been with me
    0:23:56 a long time
    0:23:58 and we sat in a room
    0:23:58 and we’re talking
    0:23:59 back and forth.
    0:24:01 what would make
    0:24:01 a member
    0:24:03 want to refer someone?
    0:24:05 And John said,
    0:24:06 you know,
    0:24:06 jokingly,
    0:24:07 give it to him
    0:24:08 for free.
    0:24:09 You know,
    0:24:09 I said,
    0:24:10 yes,
    0:24:11 that’s what we’re
    0:24:11 going to do.
    0:24:13 And so we’re like,
    0:24:14 how do we do that?
    0:24:14 And so we’re like,
    0:24:14 all right,
    0:24:15 well,
    0:24:15 Sean’s paying,
    0:24:16 you know,
    0:24:17 let’s say this,
    0:24:18 for every person
    0:24:19 Sean refers that joins,
    0:24:20 he could get a dollar
    0:24:21 off his dues.
    0:24:23 And so in that process,
    0:24:25 Sean is $30 a month
    0:24:26 or $20 a month.
    0:24:27 Sean has to refer
    0:24:28 $20 a month
    0:24:29 for that $20.
    0:24:31 And we found
    0:24:32 that our members,
    0:24:33 like when we did
    0:24:33 our sales pitch,
    0:24:34 we said,
    0:24:34 hey,
    0:24:34 Sean,
    0:24:34 you know,
    0:24:35 our membership’s
    0:24:36 $39.99,
    0:24:37 but you can get it
    0:24:37 for free.
    0:24:39 Would you like to know
    0:24:40 how you get it for free?
    0:24:41 People would be like,
    0:24:41 yeah,
    0:24:42 great.
    0:24:43 Just refer your friends,
    0:24:43 your family,
    0:24:44 your coworkers,
    0:24:45 anybody you want.
    0:24:46 Here’s the pass.
    0:24:46 We’re going to write
    0:24:47 your name on it,
    0:24:47 Sean.
    0:24:48 How many passes
    0:24:48 do you want?
    0:24:49 Sean’s like,
    0:24:49 I want,
    0:24:50 I want 40
    0:24:51 because I’m paying $40.
    0:24:52 Right.
    0:24:52 Great.
    0:24:55 And now when they sign up,
    0:24:55 they come in
    0:24:56 and give us Sean’s pass.
    0:24:58 we would connect it
    0:24:58 to their membership.
    0:25:00 Sean’s dues would now
    0:25:01 go down by a dollar.
    0:25:02 It was amazing
    0:25:02 what we saw
    0:25:03 where people were
    0:25:03 so motivated.
    0:25:04 Even for a dollar,
    0:25:05 that worked.
    0:25:07 And it was amazing
    0:25:07 for people for even
    0:25:08 for like,
    0:25:08 you know,
    0:25:08 because you’d have
    0:25:09 people that would
    0:25:11 go down from 40 to zero
    0:25:12 and all of a sudden
    0:25:13 two people would quit.
    0:25:14 so their membership’s
    0:25:15 now two bucks.
    0:25:16 Who’s the two people?
    0:25:17 You know,
    0:25:17 and you’re like,
    0:25:18 well,
    0:25:19 okay.
    0:25:19 They start shaking
    0:25:20 people down.
    0:25:21 They start calling people
    0:25:21 and be like,
    0:25:22 how did you,
    0:25:22 how did you get out
    0:25:23 of the gym?
    0:25:23 I mean,
    0:25:24 I watched it happen
    0:25:24 myself.
    0:25:25 So we created
    0:25:27 this referral concept
    0:25:29 that was really good
    0:25:30 and,
    0:25:30 you know,
    0:25:31 that kind of
    0:25:32 escalated us.
    0:25:33 And then we started
    0:25:33 to realize,
    0:25:33 look,
    0:25:34 we got to,
    0:25:36 as we grew the gyms,
    0:25:36 right,
    0:25:38 we learned what we did
    0:25:39 right and we learned
    0:25:39 what we did wrong.
    0:25:40 For example,
    0:25:40 like,
    0:25:41 you know,
    0:25:42 we would build pools
    0:25:43 in some of our gyms.
    0:25:43 Well,
    0:25:44 there’s nothing wrong
    0:25:45 with having a pool,
    0:25:46 but the reality is
    0:25:46 you’re going to have
    0:25:47 two to three,
    0:25:48 maybe four people
    0:25:48 in at a time.
    0:25:49 It’s going to take
    0:25:50 10,000 square feet,
    0:25:51 right?
    0:25:52 6,000 to 10,000 square feet.
    0:25:54 That’s a lot of footage
    0:25:54 for four people,
    0:25:55 right?
    0:25:56 And so we started
    0:25:57 just realizing
    0:25:58 what our model was
    0:25:59 as we went forward
    0:26:00 and then we just decided,
    0:26:00 okay,
    0:26:01 we’re going to give
    0:26:03 a great value
    0:26:04 at a great price
    0:26:05 and then we’re going
    0:26:06 to incentivize you
    0:26:07 to refer people,
    0:26:08 right?
    0:26:09 And it worked.
    0:26:10 So how long did it
    0:26:10 take you to get out
    0:26:11 of the holes?
    0:26:12 So the initial mistake
    0:26:13 was big.
    0:26:14 Fast forward to 2011,
    0:26:15 okay?
    0:26:17 I now have 12 gyms
    0:26:20 and I’m with Gold’s Gym.
    0:26:21 12 Gold’s Gym,
    0:26:22 2011,
    0:26:24 I had bought
    0:26:25 some property
    0:26:27 and one property
    0:26:28 I had,
    0:26:29 I paid $4 million,
    0:26:30 okay?
    0:26:31 I owed $750.
    0:26:32 I’d been paying
    0:26:34 them every month
    0:26:35 at 13%
    0:26:36 for three years.
    0:26:38 And so I go
    0:26:38 to this lender,
    0:26:39 I actually went
    0:26:39 to high school
    0:26:40 with this guy’s
    0:26:41 granddaughter
    0:26:41 and they were
    0:26:42 good old boys
    0:26:43 from where I grew up,
    0:26:44 you know,
    0:26:46 and I went to them
    0:26:46 and I said,
    0:26:47 hey,
    0:26:47 look,
    0:26:49 if I give you $50,000
    0:26:50 and for me,
    0:26:51 $50,000 at that time
    0:26:53 was all I had,
    0:26:53 right?
    0:26:55 Will you rewrite my note
    0:26:56 and give me another year
    0:26:57 and change my interest rate?
    0:26:58 Because I’m now starting
    0:26:59 to climb up
    0:26:59 on the cash,
    0:27:00 right?
    0:27:02 And my sales,
    0:27:03 I have 12 gyms,
    0:27:03 they’re all doing well
    0:27:05 and so the guy says,
    0:27:05 sure,
    0:27:06 Chopra,
    0:27:07 bring us a $50,000
    0:27:09 cashier’s check tomorrow.
    0:27:10 I said,
    0:27:11 okay,
    0:27:11 let me have my lawyer
    0:27:12 draft up a document.
    0:27:14 You don’t trust us,
    0:27:14 Chopra?
    0:27:15 You need a lawyer?
    0:27:18 Yeah,
    0:27:18 again,
    0:27:19 no mentor,
    0:27:20 no coach.
    0:27:21 Go,
    0:27:23 get the $50,000
    0:27:24 cashier’s check,
    0:27:24 bring it in,
    0:27:25 put it on their desk.
    0:27:26 Two weeks later,
    0:27:27 I get a foreclosure notice.
    0:27:29 Now,
    0:27:30 call them,
    0:27:30 what’s going on?
    0:27:31 Say,
    0:27:31 oh,
    0:27:32 we think this property’s worth
    0:27:34 $4 million.
    0:27:35 So,
    0:27:37 we’re going to take it from you.
    0:27:39 Whoa.
    0:27:40 So,
    0:27:41 in the initial time,
    0:27:43 I start calling around
    0:27:44 and then I go to Gold’s Gym
    0:27:45 the next week,
    0:27:45 I go,
    0:27:47 and the guy has now passed away,
    0:27:48 but he’s the president
    0:27:49 of Gold’s Gym at the time
    0:27:50 and I go in
    0:27:51 and there’s this big
    0:27:52 Gold’s Convention every year,
    0:27:53 whether it was Vegas,
    0:27:53 LA,
    0:27:54 San Diego,
    0:27:54 it was at the time
    0:27:55 I was in Vegas.
    0:27:56 I still remember
    0:27:57 I went and met with them
    0:27:57 and I said,
    0:27:57 hey,
    0:27:57 look,
    0:27:58 I’ve opened up 12 stores
    0:27:59 in three years.
    0:28:00 You know?
    0:28:02 I’d like to open up 50.
    0:28:05 And he laughed.
    0:28:07 I’m my favorite.
    0:28:08 You can’t open up 50.
    0:28:10 We can’t even open up 50.
    0:28:12 He said,
    0:28:12 but look,
    0:28:13 I’ll do you a favor.
    0:28:14 I said,
    0:28:15 you can have,
    0:28:16 open up a gym
    0:28:17 for every time
    0:28:18 you have $1 million
    0:28:19 in the bank.
    0:28:20 So,
    0:28:20 you want to open up 50?
    0:28:22 Show me 50 million.
    0:28:23 Remember,
    0:28:24 50,000 for me was,
    0:28:25 ooh.
    0:28:26 So,
    0:28:28 I had this franchise agreement
    0:28:30 and so I called this lawyer
    0:28:31 really trying to save
    0:28:32 the property,
    0:28:32 right?
    0:28:33 I called somebody
    0:28:34 I knew from law school
    0:28:35 and said,
    0:28:35 hey,
    0:28:35 man,
    0:28:36 I got this property,
    0:28:37 you know,
    0:28:38 can I sue the lender?
    0:28:39 What can I do?
    0:28:39 And we’re not really
    0:28:41 in the lawsuit type of thing
    0:28:42 at that point.
    0:28:42 so,
    0:28:44 he said,
    0:28:44 file bankruptcy.
    0:28:45 I said,
    0:28:46 no,
    0:28:48 tomorrow I can’t do it.
    0:28:50 And then we started
    0:28:51 looking at the benefits
    0:28:51 at the time.
    0:28:52 We were paying everybody
    0:28:53 and,
    0:28:54 you know,
    0:28:55 long story short,
    0:28:56 we ended up filing
    0:28:56 Chapter 11.
    0:28:58 We were able to rebrand.
    0:28:59 We paid everybody
    0:29:01 100 cents on the dollar
    0:29:01 that was secured
    0:29:03 and we started growing
    0:29:04 the gyms after that.
    0:29:06 And in the process,
    0:29:08 we reorganized our life.
    0:29:11 We paid all the people,
    0:29:12 all the 15 million
    0:29:12 we owed,
    0:29:13 we paid with interest.
    0:29:16 But that also built me
    0:29:16 on the next round
    0:29:17 that we’ll talk about,
    0:29:18 right?
    0:29:20 I was very,
    0:29:20 like some of those lenders
    0:29:22 are still great friends
    0:29:22 to today
    0:29:23 where I can pick up the phone
    0:29:24 and call and say,
    0:29:24 hey,
    0:29:26 we’re from the Bay Area,
    0:29:26 right?
    0:29:26 Like,
    0:29:27 so I call them and say,
    0:29:27 hey,
    0:29:28 can I get a loan?
    0:29:29 I just called one
    0:29:31 and they said,
    0:29:31 yeah,
    0:29:31 we’ll do it for you
    0:29:32 in a heartbeat.
    0:29:33 You don’t need anything?
    0:29:33 No,
    0:29:34 we know.
    0:29:35 You stood behind.
    0:29:36 And so,
    0:29:37 you know,
    0:29:38 so we started building the gyms
    0:29:39 and we started building
    0:29:40 more gyms
    0:29:41 and then really we had
    0:29:42 no real estate
    0:29:42 at this point.
    0:29:43 We had sold our house,
    0:29:44 we had sold our cars,
    0:29:45 we just had gyms.
    0:29:47 We were just a gym operator.
    0:29:50 And I think by 2015,
    0:29:52 we’d gotten up to about
    0:29:53 33 stores
    0:29:55 and
    0:29:58 decided to tell my wife,
    0:29:58 like,
    0:29:59 I want to get back
    0:29:59 into real estate.
    0:30:00 and,
    0:30:01 but I didn’t have the,
    0:30:02 I didn’t have the seed capital.
    0:30:02 Real estate was always
    0:30:04 capital intensive.
    0:30:05 And so,
    0:30:06 I looked through my portfolio
    0:30:07 and sure enough,
    0:30:07 I remembered,
    0:30:09 I optioned that second
    0:30:10 gym in Oakdale.
    0:30:11 So,
    0:30:12 I basically
    0:30:14 used that option
    0:30:15 to buy
    0:30:16 the center
    0:30:18 and then I sold it
    0:30:18 to someone else
    0:30:19 based on my new lease.
    0:30:20 Sorry,
    0:30:21 so explain how this works.
    0:30:21 So,
    0:30:23 if I’ve never done real estate,
    0:30:24 I understand how this option,
    0:30:25 buy,
    0:30:25 sell,
    0:30:26 what do you mean?
    0:30:26 So,
    0:30:27 in our lease,
    0:30:28 we put this option,
    0:30:29 let’s say you’re Mr. Seller.
    0:30:29 Right.
    0:30:30 And we say,
    0:30:30 Mr. Seller,
    0:30:32 we have the right to buy this at.
    0:30:33 We’ll rent it for now.
    0:30:33 Correct.
    0:30:34 But we have the right to buy
    0:30:35 at a defined price.
    0:30:36 Correct.
    0:30:36 Okay.
    0:30:37 At this defined time.
    0:30:38 Okay.
    0:30:39 And,
    0:30:41 in order for us to do that,
    0:30:41 we just have to tell you
    0:30:42 we’re buying it
    0:30:43 and we have 60 days,
    0:30:44 90 days to close.
    0:30:45 Right.
    0:30:46 So,
    0:30:47 we knew there was a buyer
    0:30:49 who wanted to buy gyms
    0:30:50 and do other stuff
    0:30:51 in the market.
    0:30:52 Broker approached us
    0:30:52 and said,
    0:30:52 hey,
    0:30:53 would you sell this?
    0:30:54 They didn’t know
    0:30:54 I didn’t own it.
    0:30:56 They said,
    0:30:57 would you sell it?
    0:30:57 And I said,
    0:30:57 actually,
    0:30:58 you know,
    0:30:59 and so we had optioned that
    0:30:59 at like,
    0:31:00 I think it was like
    0:31:01 three or four million bucks.
    0:31:03 We sold it at seven million.
    0:31:03 And so,
    0:31:05 you knew risk-free in a way
    0:31:07 because you have the option
    0:31:08 to buy at a defined price.
    0:31:09 You already know
    0:31:10 there’s a buyer lined up.
    0:31:10 So,
    0:31:12 you’re not speculating as much
    0:31:12 as long as you believe
    0:31:13 that they would close,
    0:31:14 that they would actually
    0:31:15 buy the thing.
    0:31:15 Yeah.
    0:31:16 And there’s no such thing
    0:31:16 as risk-free
    0:31:17 because if that buyer blows out,
    0:31:18 I didn’t have the money
    0:31:19 to buy the thing anyway.
    0:31:19 So,
    0:31:21 you know.
    0:31:22 But you did like
    0:31:23 a double escrow basically.
    0:31:23 In essence,
    0:31:27 several million dollars
    0:31:27 and we’re like,
    0:31:27 wow.
    0:31:28 And so,
    0:31:29 now that I’ve invested with you,
    0:31:30 you do this a bunch.
    0:31:31 And it is like
    0:31:32 the two sweetest worlds
    0:31:33 in the English language
    0:31:34 are double escrow.
    0:31:34 Yeah.
    0:31:35 Which basically is like,
    0:31:36 we agree to buy a thing,
    0:31:38 but before we even have to
    0:31:39 take the money out of our pocket,
    0:31:40 we sell it.
    0:31:41 So,
    0:31:42 the same day they ask us
    0:31:42 for the money,
    0:31:43 we just take the money
    0:31:44 from this guy,
    0:31:45 we give them their share,
    0:31:46 we pocket the profits.
    0:31:46 Yeah.
    0:31:47 You bought the thing
    0:31:48 and sold the thing
    0:31:49 on the same day
    0:31:50 without ever having to take
    0:31:51 the money out of your pocket.
    0:31:52 Beautiful.
    0:31:54 And you do this all the time now.
    0:31:54 It’s great.
    0:31:56 I’ll do a deal with you
    0:31:56 and you’re like,
    0:31:58 by the time we get to buy this,
    0:31:59 we’re already going to have sold
    0:32:00 10 million,
    0:32:01 7 million dollars worth
    0:32:02 of the equity,
    0:32:02 you know,
    0:32:04 because we already have
    0:32:04 buyers lined up.
    0:32:05 Yeah.
    0:32:06 And so,
    0:32:06 you did this for the,
    0:32:07 so that’s how you did
    0:32:08 your first deal.
    0:32:08 That’s how I got my first
    0:32:10 seed money to buy real estate
    0:32:10 and then I just started
    0:32:11 buying and flipping
    0:32:12 for,
    0:32:13 you know,
    0:32:14 for years.
    0:32:15 And you were doing it
    0:32:16 the same way,
    0:32:17 gym options or no?
    0:32:17 That was just like that one.
    0:32:18 I did a few gym options
    0:32:20 and I did a few gym sales.
    0:32:21 Then I got enough money
    0:32:22 to go buy a property
    0:32:23 and build a gym.
    0:32:24 And then I ended up
    0:32:25 hooking up with this company
    0:32:26 called Harbor Freight Tools.
    0:32:27 And so,
    0:32:28 as I started getting
    0:32:29 into 15,
    0:32:29 16,
    0:32:30 we started getting
    0:32:31 in the higher number
    0:32:31 of gyms.
    0:32:32 We’re like 65,
    0:32:32 70.
    0:32:34 We bought this building
    0:32:35 in San Francisco.
    0:32:36 Yeah,
    0:32:37 I remember on Market Street.
    0:32:37 Market Street.
    0:32:38 Yeah,
    0:32:38 1,
    0:32:38 2,
    0:32:38 3,
    0:32:39 4 Market Street.
    0:32:40 I think you actually
    0:32:40 came there once.
    0:32:40 Yeah,
    0:32:41 the vanity,
    0:32:42 the address.
    0:32:43 I remember just thinking,
    0:32:43 you got 1,
    0:32:43 2,
    0:32:44 3,
    0:32:44 4 Market?
    0:32:45 I was,
    0:32:45 yeah,
    0:32:45 I know.
    0:32:46 And there was,
    0:32:46 you know,
    0:32:47 every day we’d go out
    0:32:48 and pick up the needles
    0:32:49 that were outside.
    0:32:50 It was crazy.
    0:32:50 But,
    0:32:50 you know,
    0:32:51 like,
    0:32:52 at that time,
    0:32:53 we had a store there
    0:32:54 and a non-profit,
    0:32:56 a mosque,
    0:32:56 you know,
    0:32:57 approached us
    0:32:57 and said,
    0:32:58 we’d like to put
    0:32:58 our church here.
    0:33:01 And we negotiated a deal
    0:33:01 and we said,
    0:33:01 well,
    0:33:02 we wouldn’t make that money
    0:33:04 in probably like 10 years.
    0:33:04 Running a gym.
    0:33:06 15 years of running the gym.
    0:33:07 So we sold it.
    0:33:08 And then,
    0:33:08 you know,
    0:33:08 like,
    0:33:08 we’re like,
    0:33:08 oh,
    0:33:09 wow,
    0:33:09 we’ve made some money here.
    0:33:11 And as I was building
    0:33:11 my next store,
    0:33:14 somebody from Harbor Freight Tools
    0:33:15 randomly called me
    0:33:15 and said,
    0:33:15 we’d like to,
    0:33:17 we’d like to lease that box.
    0:33:18 So I go home
    0:33:19 and tell my wife,
    0:33:20 what do you think?
    0:33:21 You know,
    0:33:22 I want to build this gym.
    0:33:22 I’m used to building
    0:33:23 all these gyms.
    0:33:24 She says,
    0:33:25 well,
    0:33:26 why don’t you just do it?
    0:33:28 And so we did it
    0:33:29 and we ended up building
    0:33:31 a very big relationship there.
    0:33:32 I’m a big relationship guy.
    0:33:34 A lot of the tenants
    0:33:34 we work with,
    0:33:36 we’ve worked with for years
    0:33:38 and we ended up doing
    0:33:38 over a hundred
    0:33:39 for those guys
    0:33:40 as time went on.
    0:33:41 But,
    0:33:43 but yeah,
    0:33:43 it’s just kind of,
    0:33:44 kind of evolved
    0:33:45 as time went on.
    0:33:47 And then we got to 17
    0:33:49 and,
    0:33:49 you know,
    0:33:51 my dad was not really the,
    0:33:52 I won’t say bad things,
    0:33:53 but he wasn’t a loving type.
    0:33:54 A little bit abusive,
    0:33:56 a lot abusive at times,
    0:33:57 but,
    0:33:57 you know,
    0:33:58 he was just a different character.
    0:33:59 So,
    0:33:59 you know,
    0:34:00 my thing was
    0:34:01 whenever I have kids,
    0:34:02 you know,
    0:34:03 we can’t change the past,
    0:34:04 but we can sure as hell
    0:34:05 change the future,
    0:34:05 right?
    0:34:07 Yesterday’s gone,
    0:34:08 but tomorrow
    0:34:09 has not been written yet.
    0:34:10 And so,
    0:34:11 I kind of always had
    0:34:12 that philosophy,
    0:34:13 but I wanted to be
    0:34:14 a great dad.
    0:34:15 But during this time
    0:34:16 from 2008
    0:34:17 to 2000
    0:34:18 and probably 16,
    0:34:20 I worked seven days a week,
    0:34:23 probably 80 to 100 hours
    0:34:23 every week.
    0:34:24 I mean,
    0:34:25 I would get up at 530
    0:34:26 and be in the gyms
    0:34:27 and then I’d come home
    0:34:28 by midnight.
    0:34:29 I’d come home every night
    0:34:30 to want to see my wife
    0:34:31 and kids.
    0:34:32 And I’m thinking
    0:34:33 I’m doing a good job
    0:34:35 because I’m busting my butt,
    0:34:35 but I’m still,
    0:34:36 you know,
    0:34:38 I’m still trying,
    0:34:40 but my table was wobbly.
    0:34:40 You know,
    0:34:41 we talked about this,
    0:34:42 you know.
    0:34:43 give the table metaphor.
    0:34:43 So,
    0:34:44 I always have this belief
    0:34:45 that there’s three,
    0:34:46 your life is like
    0:34:47 there’s three legs
    0:34:47 to a table,
    0:34:48 right?
    0:34:50 Your family,
    0:34:51 your job,
    0:34:52 and your faith.
    0:34:52 And your faith
    0:34:53 doesn’t have to be God.
    0:34:54 It could be your faith
    0:34:55 in fitness.
    0:34:56 It could be your faith
    0:34:57 in the way you eat.
    0:34:58 It could be the faith
    0:34:59 the way you treat people.
    0:34:59 A code.
    0:35:01 A code you live by.
    0:35:02 It’s whatever you believe
    0:35:03 your faith is in
    0:35:04 for you to feel
    0:35:04 like you are
    0:35:06 foundationally sound.
    0:35:06 Well,
    0:35:08 if any one of those legs,
    0:35:08 you know,
    0:35:09 let’s say my job
    0:35:10 is strong,
    0:35:11 but my family life
    0:35:12 is weak.
    0:35:13 What happens to the table?
    0:35:14 It wobbles.
    0:35:17 My faith may be weak
    0:35:18 and my job may be strong.
    0:35:20 My table wobbles.
    0:35:21 And so,
    0:35:22 for me,
    0:35:23 I was,
    0:35:23 you know,
    0:35:24 I was working a lot.
    0:35:26 I was making money.
    0:35:27 There was a great relationship
    0:35:28 with my wife,
    0:35:29 but one day I’m driving home
    0:35:30 from this,
    0:35:31 from Santa Maria.
    0:35:32 I had a gym in Santa Maria.
    0:35:32 It was probably
    0:35:33 on the coast.
    0:35:34 It was probably,
    0:35:35 gosh,
    0:35:36 I’d say 400 miles
    0:35:37 from my house.
    0:35:38 Three,
    0:35:38 four,
    0:35:38 and I would drive
    0:35:39 in the morning
    0:35:40 and I would come back
    0:35:40 the same night.
    0:35:42 I’d go train.
    0:35:42 I’d go meet the managers.
    0:35:43 I’d walk my store.
    0:35:45 I wanted to see
    0:35:45 and touch and feel.
    0:35:47 And,
    0:35:49 anyways,
    0:35:51 my second son,
    0:35:51 Chase,
    0:35:53 your nephew,
    0:35:54 calls me.
    0:35:55 He’s crying hysterically.
    0:35:56 Put your mom on the phone.
    0:35:58 My wife gets on the phone.
    0:35:59 Honey,
    0:35:59 what’s he saying?
    0:36:01 And she’s crying.
    0:36:02 Says,
    0:36:03 you know,
    0:36:04 he really misses you
    0:36:05 and he wants you
    0:36:06 to come visit.
    0:36:07 He doesn’t think
    0:36:08 you live at home.
    0:36:11 And I’m going home
    0:36:12 every night on purpose,
    0:36:13 right?
    0:36:13 Like,
    0:36:14 I’m driving 400 miles.
    0:36:14 I’m like,
    0:36:15 I’m going to be there.
    0:36:18 I think I’m being a good dad.
    0:36:18 You know,
    0:36:20 I’m kissing him every night.
    0:36:21 I’m watching them.
    0:36:22 And, you know,
    0:36:24 and so the whole day
    0:36:25 it didn’t sit right with me.
    0:36:28 And that’s when I decided
    0:36:28 for myself,
    0:36:29 I said,
    0:36:30 I built this great business,
    0:36:32 but I can’t do this long term.
    0:36:35 Because for me to do it right
    0:36:36 or the way I wanted to do it,
    0:36:38 I was unable to do it
    0:36:39 and be a good father.
    0:36:41 And so that kind of changed
    0:36:42 my path of where I started
    0:36:44 focusing more on real estate.
    0:36:44 Right.
    0:36:46 And the type of real estate
    0:36:47 you would do,
    0:36:49 because real estate’s a big word,
    0:36:49 broad word,
    0:36:50 could mean anything.
    0:36:52 You do shopping centers,
    0:36:53 mostly.
    0:36:54 You’ve done other stuff too,
    0:36:55 but now you do
    0:36:56 retail shopping centers.
    0:36:57 Yeah.
    0:36:58 And as a tech guy
    0:36:59 in Silicon Valley,
    0:37:00 that always felt super random.
    0:37:02 like retail shopping centers
    0:37:02 is like,
    0:37:02 okay,
    0:37:03 oh,
    0:37:05 you’re like an archaeologist.
    0:37:06 You do dinosaur things.
    0:37:07 I get it.
    0:37:07 Like,
    0:37:08 what are you talking about,
    0:37:09 dude?
    0:37:10 But it’s this incredible,
    0:37:12 and now I invest a ton
    0:37:12 of money with you
    0:37:13 because I’m like
    0:37:14 blown away by this.
    0:37:16 So just explain
    0:37:16 kind of like
    0:37:17 even just the space,
    0:37:18 the sandbox you play in,
    0:37:20 why you play in that sandbox
    0:37:21 and like,
    0:37:21 you know,
    0:37:22 what’s your model?
    0:37:22 What do you do?
    0:37:23 You know,
    0:37:23 2010,
    0:37:25 all the news was
    0:37:26 retail’s dying,
    0:37:27 you know,
    0:37:28 but what it really did
    0:37:29 was it insulated retail.
    0:37:30 Because what happened
    0:37:31 after 2010,
    0:37:32 people started building
    0:37:34 way more multifamily,
    0:37:34 storage,
    0:37:35 industrial,
    0:37:37 but they didn’t build
    0:37:38 retail shopping centers.
    0:37:39 No,
    0:37:40 they built these pads
    0:37:41 a lot more post-COVID
    0:37:42 because what happened
    0:37:43 in COVID,
    0:37:43 right?
    0:37:44 You were closed
    0:37:46 unless you had a drive-thru.
    0:37:46 Right.
    0:37:48 And so those businesses
    0:37:49 that had a drive-thru,
    0:37:50 they crushed it.
    0:37:52 And as time went on,
    0:37:52 you know,
    0:37:53 there’s been a lot of retailers
    0:37:53 that have left.
    0:37:54 It’s no doubt,
    0:37:56 but retail has sustained
    0:37:57 and it’s kind of become
    0:37:58 a supply and demand thing
    0:37:58 where it’s like,
    0:37:59 you know,
    0:37:59 and what we are
    0:38:01 is we’re a value-add retailer.
    0:38:02 So we’re a developer.
    0:38:03 So basically what we do
    0:38:04 is we find things
    0:38:05 that we feel
    0:38:06 we can add value to,
    0:38:07 whether it’s new tenants,
    0:38:08 whether it’s breaking it up
    0:38:09 and selling it in pieces,
    0:38:10 whether it’s construction.
    0:38:13 We always have a game plan
    0:38:14 to go in and do something,
    0:38:15 you know,
    0:38:15 and I often get asked,
    0:38:16 why didn’t the other guy
    0:38:17 do it, right?
    0:38:18 Why didn’t the guy
    0:38:18 before you do it?
    0:38:19 I don’t know.
    0:38:20 You know,
    0:38:21 sometimes it’s just there
    0:38:23 and sometimes people
    0:38:23 have just been in a project
    0:38:24 too long.
    0:38:24 You know,
    0:38:25 I give you times,
    0:38:25 I’ve times,
    0:38:26 there’s been times
    0:38:27 I’ve been in a project
    0:38:27 for five,
    0:38:28 six years
    0:38:28 and I’m like,
    0:38:29 I just want to be done.
    0:38:30 Right?
    0:38:31 And then there’s been projects
    0:38:32 I’ve been in for five minutes
    0:38:32 and I’m like,
    0:38:33 let’s go.
    0:38:35 It just happens in that,
    0:38:36 in this business.
    0:38:37 And so,
    0:38:38 you know,
    0:38:39 we’ve built a lot
    0:38:39 of good relationships
    0:38:40 with a lot of tenants
    0:38:41 and,
    0:38:41 you know,
    0:38:42 the good part is
    0:38:43 is that we can email
    0:38:44 these tenants
    0:38:45 or their brokers
    0:38:45 within,
    0:38:46 you know,
    0:38:46 we buy,
    0:38:47 we’re looking at a center,
    0:38:48 we can find out
    0:38:49 generally who wants to be.
    0:38:51 Give a sense of
    0:38:54 what good looks like
    0:38:54 in real estate.
    0:38:55 What have you been able
    0:38:56 to do in your track record?
    0:38:57 You know,
    0:38:58 I,
    0:39:00 typically what we see
    0:39:00 is we see people
    0:39:02 trying to compare
    0:39:02 or,
    0:39:03 you know,
    0:39:04 match the S&P
    0:39:05 or kind of be standard,
    0:39:05 you know,
    0:39:06 seven,
    0:39:07 eight percent a year,
    0:39:08 they get some depreciation,
    0:39:09 you know,
    0:39:10 and they’re happy.
    0:39:11 They’re diversified.
    0:39:12 They’re diversified.
    0:39:12 They,
    0:39:12 you know,
    0:39:13 they can do certain things
    0:39:15 and we’re more,
    0:39:16 we target for
    0:39:17 our folks now,
    0:39:19 mid-20s to low-30s,
    0:39:20 IRR annually.
    0:39:22 And in order for us
    0:39:22 to get there,
    0:39:23 we actually have to go
    0:39:23 do something.
    0:39:25 You went from having
    0:39:27 zero real estate assets
    0:39:28 to over a billion dollars
    0:39:29 in real estate assets
    0:39:30 in 10 years.
    0:39:32 How do you do that?
    0:39:33 Don’t we all want to know?
    0:39:34 I mean,
    0:39:35 I think
    0:39:37 you have to find someone
    0:39:38 who’s already kind of
    0:39:39 figured out that game
    0:39:40 and kind of run with them,
    0:39:40 I would say.
    0:39:41 I’d also say that,
    0:39:42 like,
    0:39:42 it’s,
    0:39:43 it’s compounding.
    0:39:45 You know,
    0:39:45 it’s,
    0:39:46 you buy one deal
    0:39:48 and you sell it,
    0:39:48 you made some money.
    0:39:50 now it’s when you do it
    0:39:51 again and again
    0:39:52 and again and again
    0:39:52 and again.
    0:39:53 And so in our business,
    0:39:55 I was able to compound it
    0:39:56 by doing it again
    0:39:56 and again and again
    0:39:57 and again and again
    0:39:59 for many years.
    0:40:00 And so I would tell
    0:40:01 anybody who’s young,
    0:40:02 like,
    0:40:02 you know,
    0:40:04 you’re going to start
    0:40:04 with something,
    0:40:05 right?
    0:40:06 And then you,
    0:40:07 you got to figure out
    0:40:07 how to make that
    0:40:08 make money
    0:40:09 and move on to the next.
    0:40:10 Because if you stick
    0:40:11 to just one,
    0:40:12 there’s a lot of people
    0:40:13 out there,
    0:40:14 they have one building,
    0:40:15 they enjoy it,
    0:40:16 but they didn’t compound it
    0:40:17 to really get to where
    0:40:18 they could have gone.
    0:40:19 You,
    0:40:20 you had also told me
    0:40:21 one of the deals we did,
    0:40:22 you know,
    0:40:23 I’m learning about this
    0:40:23 as you go.
    0:40:23 And you’re like,
    0:40:24 oh,
    0:40:25 we’re buying this center
    0:40:25 and you’re like,
    0:40:26 there’s a so-and-so
    0:40:27 grocery store.
    0:40:29 And one of the reasons
    0:40:30 we’re getting this price
    0:40:31 is that that grocery store,
    0:40:33 they only have like a year
    0:40:34 left on their lease,
    0:40:35 but they have an option
    0:40:36 to extend it like 12
    0:40:37 or 15 years.
    0:40:38 But they,
    0:40:38 you know,
    0:40:39 they’re not picking it up
    0:40:39 because they don’t have to yet.
    0:40:40 They have one or two years
    0:40:41 left right now.
    0:40:42 And I was like,
    0:40:43 okay,
    0:40:43 so what’s the plan?
    0:40:43 You’re like,
    0:40:44 I’m going to get them
    0:40:45 to extend it.
    0:40:46 And I was like,
    0:40:47 but why?
    0:40:48 Why would they do that?
    0:40:48 How do you know?
    0:40:50 And it was a combination
    0:40:51 of intelligence.
    0:40:51 You were like,
    0:40:51 well,
    0:40:52 I know it’s a high-performing store.
    0:40:53 I know they should want
    0:40:54 to extend it,
    0:40:55 but they don’t have
    0:40:56 to do it proactively.
    0:40:57 But I do know the person
    0:40:59 who’s like runs their real estate,
    0:41:01 she used to run real estate
    0:41:01 for this other company.
    0:41:02 And actually,
    0:41:04 one time she left me
    0:41:05 holding the bag.
    0:41:06 She pulled out of a deal
    0:41:06 last minute
    0:41:07 and I ate the loss
    0:41:08 and I didn’t,
    0:41:09 I didn’t hold it against her.
    0:41:11 I treated her well
    0:41:13 even though we took
    0:41:14 a big financial loss on that.
    0:41:16 I believe she’s going
    0:41:17 to treat us well here
    0:41:17 and then sure enough,
    0:41:18 we buy this thing
    0:41:20 and suddenly we got
    0:41:21 a 15-year lease extension
    0:41:22 and that property’s value
    0:41:24 skyrockets from that.
    0:41:25 So sometimes it’s also
    0:41:26 about taking a loss well,
    0:41:28 not just when somebody wins.
    0:41:28 Yeah,
    0:41:30 it’s easy to high-five
    0:41:31 when things are going great,
    0:41:33 but how you act
    0:41:34 when things don’t go your way
    0:41:36 defines the character
    0:41:37 and defines the relationship,
    0:41:37 right?
    0:41:38 100%.
    0:41:41 How you act on a loss
    0:41:42 is almost more important
    0:41:43 than how you act on a win.
    0:41:43 Right.
    0:41:44 Well, your kids play sports.
    0:41:45 Do you teach them this
    0:41:46 and when it comes
    0:41:47 to their baseball,
    0:41:47 their pitching,
    0:41:48 what they’re doing?
    0:41:49 They try.
    0:41:50 I mean,
    0:41:50 they’re young.
    0:41:51 They got a lot of emotions
    0:41:53 so it’s kind of a fine balance
    0:41:54 because you don’t want them
    0:41:55 to want to lose,
    0:41:56 but you want them
    0:41:58 to understand how to lose
    0:41:59 because in life,
    0:42:00 in order for most entrepreneurs
    0:42:01 out there,
    0:42:03 most guys have had
    0:42:04 some sort of failure
    0:42:04 in their life
    0:42:06 and then boom,
    0:42:07 it clicks.
    0:42:08 and they use that
    0:42:09 as like a catalyst
    0:42:10 to just skyrocket,
    0:42:11 right?
    0:42:12 Not every business person
    0:42:14 is super successful
    0:42:14 right out the gate
    0:42:16 and most guys
    0:42:17 who have made it really far
    0:42:19 have had to grind
    0:42:19 their way through.
    0:42:20 Right.
    0:42:21 And so, you know,
    0:42:23 I’m, for my kids,
    0:42:24 that’s what I want.
    0:42:24 I want to see them,
    0:42:25 I want to do baseball.
    0:42:27 Baseball’s a sport of failure,
    0:42:27 right?
    0:42:28 You hit three out of ten,
    0:42:29 you’re in the MLB.
    0:42:31 You’re a Hall of Famer, right?
    0:42:33 That’s 30% of the time
    0:42:34 you’re touching the ball
    0:42:35 or hitting the ball.
    0:42:37 So, I like the sport
    0:42:38 because it’s mentally
    0:42:39 and I also believe like,
    0:42:39 you know,
    0:42:40 sports are a great way
    0:42:41 for kids to learn to compete,
    0:42:42 you know,
    0:42:44 and have healthy competition.
    0:42:45 But at the same time,
    0:42:46 you have a lot of people
    0:42:47 teaching their kids
    0:42:47 that I’ve seen,
    0:42:49 they think they’re competing
    0:42:50 with other kids.
    0:42:52 I try to teach my kids
    0:42:52 that you’re competing
    0:42:54 and I would tell any adult this.
    0:42:55 Not to look at everyone else.
    0:42:56 Right.
    0:42:57 Because I can only do
    0:42:58 what Sanjeev can do.
    0:43:00 I’m competing with me.
    0:43:02 Yeah, there’s a guy
    0:43:03 who came on this podcast,
    0:43:04 he had this great phrase,
    0:43:04 he goes,
    0:43:06 he’s an investor
    0:43:06 and he talks about
    0:43:07 investing and founders.
    0:43:08 What do you look for, man?
    0:43:10 What are some of the key things?
    0:43:11 And he goes,
    0:43:11 I want to know
    0:43:12 if they’re pre-fall
    0:43:13 or post-fall.
    0:43:14 He said,
    0:43:15 all great men have a fall.
    0:43:17 I love it
    0:43:18 if they’re already post-fall
    0:43:19 because I know
    0:43:20 that they know
    0:43:21 what it takes
    0:43:22 to come back up.
    0:43:23 I know that they’re going
    0:43:23 to have a certain level
    0:43:25 of maturity and humility
    0:43:26 because they’re post-fall.
    0:43:26 Right.
    0:43:28 And pre-fall,
    0:43:29 you always have to be wary
    0:43:30 because somebody
    0:43:32 who’s only ever seen the ups,
    0:43:32 you don’t know
    0:43:33 how they’ll handle the downs.
    0:43:34 You don’t know
    0:43:35 if they’ll even anticipate
    0:43:36 that there can be downs.
    0:43:38 They might get so full of themselves
    0:43:39 that they don’t actually see
    0:43:40 that that’s a possibility
    0:43:41 and they don’t guard for it
    0:43:42 and, you know,
    0:43:43 watch for the wall
    0:43:44 and make the turn
    0:43:44 as you need to do
    0:43:45 when you’re riding the race.
    0:43:47 So, I’ve always remembered that.
    0:43:49 And guys that redline
    0:43:49 or push the limits,
    0:43:51 they’re going to have some falls.
    0:43:51 Yeah.
    0:43:54 Until you get to the edge,
    0:43:54 it’s kind of like
    0:43:55 one of those things.
    0:43:55 So, you know,
    0:43:56 some of those people
    0:43:57 who have never had a fall,
    0:43:59 maybe they’re playing it,
    0:44:00 they’re playing the game
    0:44:02 as hard as they maybe could be.
    0:44:02 Right.
    0:44:03 What are some other,
    0:44:04 like, core,
    0:44:04 I don’t know,
    0:44:05 philosophies that you have?
    0:44:06 Yeah.
    0:44:06 I mean,
    0:44:08 I think core philosophy
    0:44:10 I always think of this.
    0:44:11 What would I advise my son to do?
    0:44:13 What’s an example where
    0:44:15 maybe if you had just been thinking
    0:44:16 from your own perspective,
    0:44:16 eh,
    0:44:17 you could kind of talk yourself
    0:44:18 into something,
    0:44:18 but when you think about it,
    0:44:19 like,
    0:44:20 what would I advise my son to do?
    0:44:21 The answer’s much more clear.
    0:44:22 Can you think of an example?
    0:44:23 Yeah.
    0:44:23 I mean,
    0:44:26 like when a tenant burns you
    0:44:27 or when people burn you
    0:44:28 and you say,
    0:44:28 man,
    0:44:29 I want to call that person
    0:44:30 and tell them
    0:44:31 I’m not going to do
    0:44:32 any more business with you.
    0:44:32 You know,
    0:44:34 we’re going to use the stick.
    0:44:35 Right.
    0:44:38 And what do you gain with that?
    0:44:38 Right.
    0:44:39 What would my son,
    0:44:40 what would my son Shaden
    0:44:41 gain from that?
    0:44:43 Okay.
    0:44:43 The other person knows
    0:44:44 you don’t like them.
    0:44:45 They’re not going to bring you
    0:44:45 any deals.
    0:44:46 They’re not going to do anything.
    0:44:47 Or you could say,
    0:44:47 hey,
    0:44:47 you know what?
    0:44:49 This one didn’t work out.
    0:44:51 Let’s find another one
    0:44:52 to win together on.
    0:44:52 Right.
    0:44:54 It’s a long game.
    0:44:55 It’s not a short game.
    0:44:56 Life is a long game.
    0:44:56 You know,
    0:44:56 that’s,
    0:44:58 it’s like things go full circle.
    0:44:59 Right.
    0:45:00 People say,
    0:45:01 what does going full circle means?
    0:45:02 It means,
    0:45:04 as you’re going on
    0:45:04 longer and longer,
    0:45:06 different opportunities come up.
    0:45:07 It comes all the way around.
    0:45:08 And,
    0:45:10 and so for that,
    0:45:11 it would be an example
    0:45:12 where I would probably tell him like,
    0:45:12 hey,
    0:45:12 look,
    0:45:13 you know,
    0:45:15 don’t kill the relationship.
    0:45:17 Build the relationship.
    0:45:19 Find another way to win
    0:45:19 with that person.
    0:45:21 And don’t hold on to the,
    0:45:21 you know,
    0:45:22 that’s the problem
    0:45:23 is most people hold on
    0:45:25 to memories that are,
    0:45:26 you know,
    0:45:28 the right word,
    0:45:28 I would say,
    0:45:29 the memories that
    0:45:31 affected them in a negative way.
    0:45:32 so they carry
    0:45:33 these negative ways.
    0:45:34 Instead,
    0:45:37 you can forgive,
    0:45:39 you don’t have to forget.
    0:45:39 Right.
    0:45:40 Right.
    0:45:40 I mean,
    0:45:42 and so it’s,
    0:45:44 so there’s been times
    0:45:44 in my life
    0:45:45 that I’ve even had
    0:45:46 to use this for my own.
    0:45:46 Like,
    0:45:48 I tell people a lot of times,
    0:45:48 like,
    0:45:48 you know,
    0:45:49 I will sometimes
    0:45:50 have to make a decision
    0:45:51 and I will think
    0:45:52 as if my sons
    0:45:53 or my daughters
    0:45:54 are the ones
    0:45:54 having to make
    0:45:55 that decision.
    0:45:56 and I ask,
    0:45:57 what would I tell them?
    0:45:59 And most times
    0:46:00 it takes me five seconds.
    0:46:01 And this is something
    0:46:02 that I have a conundrum
    0:46:03 about in my head
    0:46:04 for weeks.
    0:46:05 You know,
    0:46:06 oftentimes I talk to you
    0:46:06 and we’re outside
    0:46:08 and you say things
    0:46:09 so commonsensely,
    0:46:09 you know,
    0:46:09 like,
    0:46:10 well,
    0:46:11 why have I been thinking
    0:46:12 about this for two weeks?
    0:46:13 Sean got this to me
    0:46:14 in like 30 seconds,
    0:46:15 right?
    0:46:17 All right,
    0:46:17 listen,
    0:46:18 the two most beautiful words
    0:46:19 in the English language
    0:46:21 are email subscribers.
    0:46:23 You need more email subscribers,
    0:46:23 I guarantee it.
    0:46:24 I don’t care how many you have,
    0:46:25 you need more of them.
    0:46:26 I need more of them,
    0:46:27 you need more of them,
    0:46:28 we all need more email subscribers
    0:46:28 because email
    0:46:30 is an amazing way
    0:46:30 to build your business,
    0:46:31 to build an audience,
    0:46:33 and to build a direct relationship
    0:46:33 that’s not dependent
    0:46:35 on the TikTok algorithm,
    0:46:36 the Instagram algorithm.
    0:46:37 It’s how you get people
    0:46:39 to engage directly with you
    0:46:39 so you can get them
    0:46:40 to trust you,
    0:46:40 to like you,
    0:46:41 click your products,
    0:46:42 check them out,
    0:46:43 check out your stuff.
    0:46:44 That’s how you build
    0:46:45 a relationship with people.
    0:46:46 And so email subscribers
    0:46:46 are key.
    0:46:47 And they’re free.
    0:46:48 It’s an amazing tool.
    0:46:49 And the tool I use
    0:46:51 for my email subscriber base
    0:46:52 is Beehive.
    0:46:52 It’s a tool that was built
    0:46:53 by the folks
    0:46:54 who were actually running
    0:46:54 Morning Brew.
    0:46:55 So they were running growth
    0:46:56 at Morning Brew.
    0:46:58 They grew it to 4 million subscribers.
    0:46:59 And along the way,
    0:47:00 they had to build out
    0:47:01 all these special tools in-house
    0:47:03 that made Morning Brew great.
    0:47:04 It helped it grow faster,
    0:47:05 helped it make more money,
    0:47:06 helped it nurture
    0:47:07 the email subscribers.
    0:47:08 And so they took all those tools
    0:47:09 that they built internally
    0:47:09 and they said,
    0:47:11 could we provide those
    0:47:13 as a separate startup
    0:47:14 for anybody to use
    0:47:15 and not just Morning Brew?
    0:47:16 And so that’s,
    0:47:16 they made it available
    0:47:17 to everybody
    0:47:18 because before Beehive,
    0:47:19 you were duct taping
    0:47:20 five different apps together.
    0:47:21 Google Docs,
    0:47:22 MailChimp,
    0:47:22 Stripe,
    0:47:24 a spreadsheet in your dream.
    0:47:25 It was all bundled together.
    0:47:26 Well, now Beehive
    0:47:27 is just one tool that does it.
    0:47:29 And it’s a single purpose thing.
    0:47:30 It’s what I use for my newsletter.
    0:47:31 I send a newsletter out
    0:47:32 to over 100,000 people
    0:47:33 and that’s what I use.
    0:47:34 And so for listeners
    0:47:35 of My First Million,
    0:47:35 they’re actually doing
    0:47:36 a special code.
    0:47:37 So if you’re thinking about,
    0:47:38 hey, I should have a newsletter.
    0:47:39 I should have subscribers.
    0:47:39 I kind of want to build
    0:47:40 an audience that way.
    0:47:41 Well, check it out.
    0:47:43 They’ll give you 30% off.
    0:47:44 Use the code MFM30.
    0:47:45 Go to beehive.com.
    0:47:48 That’s B-E-E-H-I-I-V.com
    0:47:50 and use the code MFM30.
    0:47:50 I’ll put the link
    0:47:51 in the description
    0:47:52 to make it easy for you.
    0:47:53 Start scaling your content today.
    0:47:55 What have you seen
    0:47:57 just because you’re in retail,
    0:47:58 like what have you seen
    0:47:59 as the trend?
    0:47:59 What’s going on?
    0:48:01 Like what’s changing?
    0:48:03 Maybe what’s dying?
    0:48:03 What’s exploding?
    0:48:04 Yeah.
    0:48:05 What can you teach us?
    0:48:06 Because you see a different
    0:48:06 part of the world
    0:48:07 than we do.
    0:48:08 And you see more
    0:48:09 of the leading indicators.
    0:48:10 You know who’s expanding.
    0:48:12 You know who’s contracting, right?
    0:48:13 You know which locations
    0:48:14 are thriving
    0:48:15 and which ones are struggling.
    0:48:17 What have you seen, I guess?
    0:48:18 What’s going on?
    0:48:19 So for retail specifically,
    0:48:21 there’s been a lot of new things
    0:48:22 called experiential retail.
    0:48:23 It’s come out, you know,
    0:48:24 in fitness centers.
    0:48:26 We’ve been there for a long time,
    0:48:27 but now there’s pickleball,
    0:48:28 trampoline parks.
    0:48:30 You know, retail is important
    0:48:31 for any centers
    0:48:32 to drive traffic.
    0:48:33 So retail used to be like,
    0:48:35 you know, where that,
    0:48:36 now it’s, let’s say,
    0:48:38 pickleball or a trampoline park.
    0:48:39 It would have just been
    0:48:41 go buy clothes at the store, right?
    0:48:43 Basically, that’s the shift
    0:48:44 that’s happening is like
    0:48:46 people buying, you know,
    0:48:47 maybe more of that stuff
    0:48:48 is being bought online,
    0:48:48 but you can’t buy
    0:48:49 the experience online.
    0:48:51 Yeah, and there’s places
    0:48:52 that are thriving like,
    0:48:54 Ross Dress for Less
    0:48:55 or Burlington Coat
    0:48:55 or TJ Maxx.
    0:48:56 My wife loves home goods
    0:48:57 or TJ Maxx.
    0:48:58 Your wife loves it.
    0:48:59 It’s like a treasure hunt
    0:49:01 every time you go, right?
    0:49:02 And they’re sourcing things
    0:49:03 that people can go
    0:49:03 and they’re looking
    0:49:04 for that treasure.
    0:49:05 Look at all the junk we bought
    0:49:06 but the deal we got
    0:49:06 on the junk.
    0:49:06 The deal was amazing.
    0:49:08 So the experience for that,
    0:49:10 so that also becomes experiential
    0:49:11 but it also becomes where
    0:49:13 it’s not stuff
    0:49:15 you could easily find online, right?
    0:49:18 And so online has definitely
    0:49:19 had some form of effect
    0:49:21 where you’ve had some brands
    0:49:22 that are going away.
    0:49:22 For example,
    0:49:23 as of recent,
    0:49:24 Big Lots went away,
    0:49:26 Joann’s went away,
    0:49:27 you know,
    0:49:28 Right Aid is in bankruptcy
    0:49:29 and you say,
    0:49:29 when’s the last time
    0:49:30 I went to a Big Lots?
    0:49:31 When’s the last time
    0:49:33 I went to a Joann’s?
    0:49:34 They never adapted
    0:49:36 into today’s market
    0:49:38 to be able to do both
    0:49:40 because really all retailers
    0:49:43 should have their retail
    0:49:44 also being their distribution.
    0:49:44 Right.
    0:49:47 And so an e-commerce person
    0:49:47 needs distribution.
    0:49:50 So now if you can do both
    0:49:51 and that’s where
    0:49:52 the smarter retailers
    0:49:52 have gotten
    0:49:53 where they’ll ship
    0:49:54 out of stores.
    0:49:54 Yeah.
    0:49:55 They’ll do certain things
    0:49:56 to create where now
    0:49:56 they have a,
    0:49:57 they don’t have to do
    0:49:59 a 150,000 square foot
    0:49:59 distribution
    0:50:01 because they got a Best Buy
    0:50:03 in this part of Wisconsin.
    0:50:04 That part can ship everywhere.
    0:50:07 And I think retail
    0:50:07 has also changed
    0:50:08 in the fact that
    0:50:08 you’ve got more,
    0:50:09 you know,
    0:50:11 offices uses
    0:50:13 now going to retail.
    0:50:13 You know,
    0:50:14 you have lawyers
    0:50:14 and shopping centers,
    0:50:16 you have insurance people,
    0:50:17 you have doctors.
    0:50:18 They’re going where
    0:50:19 the foot traffic is.
    0:50:19 Right.
    0:50:20 Right.
    0:50:20 And so,
    0:50:21 and then food has become
    0:50:22 a big component.
    0:50:23 Right.
    0:50:24 And the experience of food
    0:50:24 is what,
    0:50:25 you know,
    0:50:25 and you can DoorDash
    0:50:26 anything you want,
    0:50:27 but even,
    0:50:28 you know,
    0:50:29 the ghost kitchen concept
    0:50:30 has been tested.
    0:50:32 DoorDash did ghost kitchens.
    0:50:33 They closed majority of them.
    0:50:35 The reason is because
    0:50:36 people like the experience.
    0:50:37 They want to pick
    0:50:37 what they want.
    0:50:38 And yeah,
    0:50:39 you can order it
    0:50:40 from your house.
    0:50:41 you can go there,
    0:50:42 your forte,
    0:50:43 but you can get it.
    0:50:45 The kitchen has value.
    0:50:46 And so I think it’s,
    0:50:47 the fundamental is
    0:50:48 that the locate,
    0:50:50 and when we see things,
    0:50:51 we also see
    0:50:54 where retail is
    0:50:57 over 90% lease right now.
    0:50:58 A very high occupancy.
    0:51:01 And there’s certain parts
    0:51:02 of retail
    0:51:03 that are no longer viable.
    0:51:04 You know,
    0:51:05 you think about the old town
    0:51:06 like where I grew up.
    0:51:07 There was a small town
    0:51:09 and there was a JCPenney’s
    0:51:10 on one side,
    0:51:11 right?
    0:51:13 And then Lowe’s,
    0:51:13 TJ Maxx,
    0:51:14 HomeGoods,
    0:51:15 all went to the other side
    0:51:15 of the freeway.
    0:51:18 Everybody went on the other side.
    0:51:18 Target,
    0:51:19 everybody’s there.
    0:51:20 Well,
    0:51:21 that other side of the retail,
    0:51:23 it’s hurting
    0:51:24 because it’s not
    0:51:24 in the right location.
    0:51:26 So location’s also
    0:51:27 another key thing
    0:51:28 that I didn’t really understand
    0:51:29 when people would tell me
    0:51:30 when I was younger,
    0:51:30 location,
    0:51:30 location,
    0:51:31 location.
    0:51:32 Now,
    0:51:33 yeah,
    0:51:33 location,
    0:51:34 location,
    0:51:34 location.
    0:51:35 And,
    0:51:35 you know,
    0:51:37 I think in any real estate,
    0:51:38 it’s important to understand
    0:51:39 like when you’re trying
    0:51:40 to make money
    0:51:41 in real estate
    0:51:41 or I would say
    0:51:42 any business,
    0:51:44 you really make money
    0:51:44 on the buy.
    0:51:46 If you’re thinking
    0:51:46 you’re going to make money
    0:51:48 on the sale immediately,
    0:51:49 you’re speculating.
    0:51:50 But if you bought
    0:51:51 something right,
    0:51:53 I buy,
    0:51:54 I could buy a car
    0:51:56 and I know the car’s
    0:51:57 worth $30,000
    0:51:58 and I buy it for $28,000,
    0:51:59 $29,000,
    0:52:00 whatever that is.
    0:52:01 I did all right.
    0:52:04 I made money
    0:52:04 on the buy
    0:52:05 whereas people
    0:52:06 buy things
    0:52:07 on speculation
    0:52:08 and
    0:52:10 when that speculation
    0:52:11 doesn’t come to fruition,
    0:52:13 that’s when we get hurt.
    0:52:14 Exactly.
    0:52:16 And you’ve also,
    0:52:18 like,
    0:52:18 you’ve done a bunch
    0:52:19 of all these
    0:52:19 like electric car
    0:52:20 charging stations
    0:52:21 and stuff like that,
    0:52:23 like new retail uses
    0:52:23 that are,
    0:52:23 you know,
    0:52:24 coming up as well,
    0:52:24 right?
    0:52:25 Electric cars,
    0:52:28 we do recycle stuff,
    0:52:30 we’re doing fireworks
    0:52:31 everywhere,
    0:52:32 anything that we can
    0:52:33 bring traffic in,
    0:52:34 you know,
    0:52:35 and we want you
    0:52:35 to bring your,
    0:52:36 you know,
    0:52:37 your Tesla
    0:52:38 to the shopping center
    0:52:38 because you plug in
    0:52:39 and you’re going
    0:52:40 to go eat for 20 minutes.
    0:52:42 You’ve got time
    0:52:43 to go do something,
    0:52:43 right?
    0:52:44 And so,
    0:52:45 you know,
    0:52:47 but the number
    0:52:47 of retailers
    0:52:48 has reduced
    0:52:49 over the years
    0:52:50 because a lot
    0:52:51 of those concepts
    0:52:51 were either,
    0:52:52 you know,
    0:52:53 the kind of tough part
    0:52:54 for retailers,
    0:52:54 there’s been a lot
    0:52:55 of private equity
    0:52:56 that buys them,
    0:52:57 they put heavy debt
    0:52:59 and then when any change
    0:53:00 in the market happens
    0:53:01 or they don’t adapt
    0:53:01 to anything,
    0:53:02 can’t survive,
    0:53:03 can’t survive,
    0:53:03 right?
    0:53:05 And that’s what happened
    0:53:06 to like Joann’s
    0:53:06 or,
    0:53:07 you know,
    0:53:07 even,
    0:53:08 you know,
    0:53:09 Big Lots,
    0:53:10 Big Lots had the $2 billion
    0:53:11 in debt and,
    0:53:13 but they also never adapted.
    0:53:14 One of the things
    0:53:16 I always wanted to do
    0:53:16 was you do,
    0:53:18 when you own the gyms,
    0:53:18 you would do these
    0:53:19 like sales trainings,
    0:53:20 you do this like
    0:53:20 motivational talks,
    0:53:21 you do a lot
    0:53:21 of these things
    0:53:22 that,
    0:53:22 you know,
    0:53:23 maybe you,
    0:53:24 I don’t know
    0:53:24 if you like doing them,
    0:53:25 but like at some point
    0:53:26 you probably were happy
    0:53:27 to be done doing it
    0:53:28 for a little bit,
    0:53:29 but what would have
    0:53:29 been the highlights?
    0:53:30 What were the,
    0:53:31 what were your best,
    0:53:32 what were your best bits?
    0:53:33 I’d often talk about
    0:53:33 Kobe Bryant,
    0:53:34 right?
    0:53:35 I always loved,
    0:53:35 you know,
    0:53:36 Kobe Bryant’s analogies
    0:53:37 where he would say,
    0:53:37 ah,
    0:53:37 you know,
    0:53:39 I look at it like this.
    0:53:41 I work two hours extra a day
    0:53:42 every day.
    0:53:43 Now you got to take
    0:53:44 that time five days,
    0:53:45 it’s 10 hours,
    0:53:45 you know,
    0:53:46 a week.
    0:53:47 Take that times four weeks
    0:53:48 a month,
    0:53:49 there’s 40 hours.
    0:53:49 Take it times 12,
    0:53:51 it’s 480 hours.
    0:53:53 Over my 15-year career,
    0:53:54 I’ve almost done
    0:53:56 8,000 more hours
    0:53:57 or 10,000 more hours
    0:53:58 than anyone else.
    0:53:59 You stack days.
    0:54:01 So a lot of my motivation
    0:54:03 was how do you stack days?
    0:54:04 The other thing
    0:54:05 that I was always
    0:54:05 very important on
    0:54:06 and training
    0:54:07 was
    0:54:09 when you’re there,
    0:54:10 be there.
    0:54:12 What does that mean,
    0:54:12 right?
    0:54:13 Well,
    0:54:14 when you’re at work,
    0:54:15 be at work.
    0:54:16 When you’re at home,
    0:54:17 be home.
    0:54:18 Don’t be at work
    0:54:19 thinking about home
    0:54:20 and at home
    0:54:21 thinking about work.
    0:54:23 And people don’t get that often
    0:54:25 because you only get
    0:54:26 so much time.
    0:54:26 So when I,
    0:54:27 when my game face is on,
    0:54:28 let’s go.
    0:54:30 And when I’m with my kids,
    0:54:31 let’s go.
    0:54:32 When I’m on my own,
    0:54:34 that’s what I get to do,
    0:54:34 let’s go.
    0:54:35 Right.
    0:54:35 For myself,
    0:54:37 but a lot of people
    0:54:38 don’t understand that
    0:54:38 like when I talk about
    0:54:39 the commodity of time,
    0:54:40 right,
    0:54:41 it’s limited.
    0:54:42 And now,
    0:54:43 so if you’re here
    0:54:44 thinking about here,
    0:54:45 you’re here thinking about here
    0:54:46 and you’re doing all this stuff,
    0:54:46 like,
    0:54:48 so that’s something I think
    0:54:49 that every entrepreneur
    0:54:50 or young person
    0:54:52 should focus on themselves.
    0:54:53 Right.
    0:54:54 And then I also would teach them
    0:54:56 to have a game plan.
    0:54:57 Make a list.
    0:54:58 Some people say,
    0:54:58 oh,
    0:54:59 I don’t need a list.
    0:55:00 When you write it down,
    0:55:02 majority of people
    0:55:03 are visual learners.
    0:55:04 I’m,
    0:55:04 for me,
    0:55:05 I’m a visual guy.
    0:55:05 if I write it down,
    0:55:06 I’ll remember it.
    0:55:07 You tell me that
    0:55:09 there’s a good chance
    0:55:09 I forget it.
    0:55:10 Right.
    0:55:11 So what’s the way
    0:55:12 you remember?
    0:55:12 What’s the way
    0:55:13 that you’re going to remember
    0:55:14 what you’re doing?
    0:55:15 Because you’ve got to
    0:55:16 write down your goals
    0:55:17 and kind of get to the next step
    0:55:19 of taking that time
    0:55:19 and really pushing it.
    0:55:20 Were you big on that,
    0:55:20 like,
    0:55:22 kind of writing down a vision
    0:55:23 or writing down,
    0:55:24 whether it’s affirmations
    0:55:24 or a vision
    0:55:25 or a goal,
    0:55:25 like,
    0:55:27 were you a big
    0:55:27 kind of like
    0:55:30 self-motivator
    0:55:30 in that way?
    0:55:31 Did you have any habits
    0:55:33 that served you well?
    0:55:35 I never really wrote down
    0:55:35 affirmations
    0:55:36 or any of that stuff,
    0:55:37 but I would always
    0:55:39 ask myself why.
    0:55:41 Why am I doing this?
    0:55:42 What is my goal here?
    0:55:44 And for sometimes
    0:55:44 it was my goal
    0:55:45 was to make money
    0:55:46 because I got to pay bills.
    0:55:47 You know,
    0:55:47 I’d be at the gym
    0:55:49 at 1030 at night
    0:55:50 calling someone randomly
    0:55:50 saying,
    0:55:50 hey,
    0:55:51 if you come in
    0:55:52 with your entire family
    0:55:54 tonight by 11 o’clock
    0:55:55 and spend $2,000,
    0:55:57 we’ll give you an extra year
    0:55:57 for free.
    0:55:57 Right.
    0:55:58 whatever it was,
    0:55:59 right,
    0:56:00 because I needed
    0:56:01 the $2,000.
    0:56:02 So at that time
    0:56:03 it was money motivated.
    0:56:04 Other times
    0:56:04 it was because
    0:56:05 I wanted to actually
    0:56:06 like for my employees
    0:56:07 or even my kids,
    0:56:09 I really want to see
    0:56:09 them succeed
    0:56:10 and I wanted them
    0:56:11 to learn a way.
    0:56:11 I mean,
    0:56:12 there was employees
    0:56:13 that we had come in
    0:56:14 and never had made
    0:56:15 more than $8,
    0:56:16 $10 an hour
    0:56:17 at that time
    0:56:18 and they started
    0:56:19 making $150,
    0:56:20 $200 grand a year
    0:56:22 and it wasn’t just sales.
    0:56:22 It was also treating
    0:56:23 people right.
    0:56:24 It was also understanding,
    0:56:24 you know,
    0:56:26 what motivates people
    0:56:26 and,
    0:56:27 you know,
    0:56:28 I always tell a story
    0:56:28 like sometimes
    0:56:29 I would tell
    0:56:30 when I was young,
    0:56:31 my dad used to
    0:56:32 always do a thing
    0:56:33 that was pretty,
    0:56:33 you know,
    0:56:34 when I say abusive,
    0:56:35 what does that mean?
    0:56:36 My dad would take me,
    0:56:36 you know,
    0:56:37 he’d have a few drinks,
    0:56:38 he was an Indian guy,
    0:56:38 he’d come,
    0:56:39 he’d be sitting
    0:56:40 at the table doodling
    0:56:40 until I was probably
    0:56:41 like 12 or 13,
    0:56:42 he would come
    0:56:43 and grab you by the neck
    0:56:44 and he’d take you
    0:56:45 to the restroom
    0:56:46 and he’d put your head
    0:56:46 near the toilet
    0:56:47 and he’d say,
    0:56:47 see that?
    0:56:49 That’s what you are.
    0:56:50 And I,
    0:56:50 you know,
    0:56:52 and I always tell people,
    0:56:52 you know,
    0:56:53 that could have affected me
    0:56:54 in two ways.
    0:56:56 it could have completely
    0:56:57 demotivated me
    0:56:59 or I could have used it
    0:57:00 as I never want
    0:57:01 to be that.
    0:57:03 And so,
    0:57:05 everybody’s experience
    0:57:06 is different
    0:57:06 from the others.
    0:57:08 That’s why I always tell people
    0:57:08 you’re not competing
    0:57:09 with someone else.
    0:57:10 Yeah,
    0:57:10 I like your,
    0:57:11 kind of the,
    0:57:14 be there wherever you are,
    0:57:14 be here now,
    0:57:16 is so,
    0:57:18 I think even more underrated now
    0:57:19 because in a world
    0:57:21 of distraction,
    0:57:22 on tap,
    0:57:24 I’m bored,
    0:57:26 I can solve it right away.
    0:57:27 I’m half here,
    0:57:28 I’m tired,
    0:57:29 I can solve it right away.
    0:57:30 I’m annoyed,
    0:57:30 I can do,
    0:57:31 I can,
    0:57:33 I have this pacifier
    0:57:34 in my hand.
    0:57:34 Like,
    0:57:35 I have a little baby,
    0:57:35 I have a one-year-old,
    0:57:37 so I have a paci
    0:57:38 right here.
    0:57:38 At any time,
    0:57:40 I could just suck on this
    0:57:41 and I’m going to have,
    0:57:42 I’m going to have my problems
    0:57:44 soothed for a moment.
    0:57:45 And so,
    0:57:48 being able to just be
    0:57:49 wherever you are,
    0:57:50 but be there fully,
    0:57:50 and like,
    0:57:51 there’s a,
    0:57:53 my sister had this situation
    0:57:54 where she was
    0:57:55 in business school
    0:57:57 in Indiana.
    0:57:57 She went to
    0:57:58 Indiana University
    0:57:59 for business school.
    0:57:59 So,
    0:58:00 they’re in Bloomington,
    0:58:00 Indiana.
    0:58:01 Now,
    0:58:02 Bloomington,
    0:58:03 Indiana is not the nicest place,
    0:58:04 didn’t want to be there.
    0:58:05 And the next semester,
    0:58:06 they were going to go to Italy.
    0:58:06 So,
    0:58:07 they had this like,
    0:58:08 next semester,
    0:58:08 we’re in Italy.
    0:58:10 But while they’re in Bloomington,
    0:58:11 they didn’t bother going out
    0:58:12 and making friends.
    0:58:13 They didn’t bother like,
    0:58:13 checking out the area.
    0:58:14 They didn’t,
    0:58:15 you know,
    0:58:16 they were just kind of
    0:58:16 going through the motions.
    0:58:18 And the reason why was,
    0:58:19 they thought,
    0:58:19 oh,
    0:58:20 Bloomington’s lame.
    0:58:21 Italy’s going to be amazing though.
    0:58:22 Can’t wait.
    0:58:22 Do you know how we’re going to be
    0:58:23 when we’re there?
    0:58:23 We’re going to be,
    0:58:24 oh,
    0:58:25 I’m going to be speaking Italian.
    0:58:26 I’m going to be gelato
    0:58:27 and cafes.
    0:58:28 And I’m going to be so,
    0:58:30 it’s going to be so amazing.
    0:58:30 And I was like,
    0:58:31 that’s great.
    0:58:33 You’re not there yet.
    0:58:35 And while you’re in Bloomington,
    0:58:36 you wish you were in Italy.
    0:58:37 Guess what?
    0:58:37 When you’re in Italy,
    0:58:38 you’re probably going to wish
    0:58:39 you were back in the States,
    0:58:39 you know,
    0:58:40 because you’re going to miss
    0:58:41 certain other things.
    0:58:43 If you’re in Bloomington,
    0:58:44 be in Bloomington.
    0:58:45 Make this your Italy,
    0:58:46 right?
    0:58:47 You can choose to have
    0:58:48 that Italian experience.
    0:58:49 You can have whatever experience
    0:58:50 you want in the place
    0:58:50 you’re at.
    0:58:52 And I’ve now seen over time,
    0:58:53 this has become a superpower
    0:58:54 where,
    0:58:55 like you said,
    0:58:55 like,
    0:58:56 you know,
    0:58:56 you’re at work,
    0:58:57 you’re thinking about home,
    0:58:57 you’re at home,
    0:58:58 you’re thinking about work,
    0:58:59 you’re with your kids,
    0:59:00 but you’re half thinking about work,
    0:59:00 you know,
    0:59:01 the half in,
    0:59:02 half out,
    0:59:03 the dim light
    0:59:05 versus being able to go off
    0:59:07 and then shine bright
    0:59:08 when it’s time to shine bright.
    0:59:09 But if you’re always flickering
    0:59:11 at this sort of dim level
    0:59:11 on all things,
    0:59:13 you’re just going to feel
    0:59:14 unsatisfied in all aspects
    0:59:15 of your life,
    0:59:15 right?
    0:59:17 And so I think that’s a great,
    0:59:19 simple reminder
    0:59:20 that’s in everybody’s control.
    0:59:22 Doesn’t take any talent
    0:59:22 to really do that.
    0:59:23 No?
    0:59:23 Yeah,
    0:59:24 it just takes a little bit
    0:59:24 of awareness.
    0:59:25 And so that’s the one
    0:59:26 I’m going to take with me
    0:59:28 the most out of this whole thing.
    0:59:29 I think we hit everything.
    0:59:29 I think we hit the highs,
    0:59:30 the lows,
    0:59:31 and then the build back up.
    0:59:32 Dude,
    0:59:33 I appreciate you doing this.
    0:59:35 I know you’re not a big
    0:59:36 kind of get out there
    0:59:38 and go toot your own horn,
    0:59:39 but I appreciate you doing this.
    0:59:41 It’s great to be here
    0:59:43 and I appreciate it.
    0:59:43 All right.
    0:59:43 That’s a wrap.
    0:59:46 I feel like I can rule the world.
    0:59:48 I know I can be what I want to.
    0:59:50 I put my all in it
    0:59:51 like my days off.
    0:59:52 On the road,
    0:59:52 let’s travel,
    0:59:54 never looking back.
    0:59:54 All right,
    0:59:55 my friends,
    0:59:56 I have a new podcast
    0:59:57 for you guys to check out.
    0:59:58 It’s called
    1:00:00 Content is Profit
    1:00:01 and it’s hosted by
    1:00:02 Luis and Fonzie Cameo.
    1:00:04 After years of building
    1:00:05 content teams
    1:00:05 and frameworks
    1:00:06 for companies like
    1:00:06 Red Bull
    1:00:08 and Orange Theory Fitness,
    1:00:09 Luis and Fonzie
    1:00:10 are on a mission
    1:00:11 to bridge the gap
    1:00:12 between content
    1:00:13 and revenue.
    1:00:14 In each episode,
    1:00:14 you’re going to hear
    1:00:15 from top entrepreneurs
    1:00:16 and creators
    1:00:16 and you’re going to hear
    1:00:17 them share their secrets
    1:00:18 and strategies
    1:00:19 to turn their content
    1:00:20 into profit.
    1:00:21 So you can check out
    1:00:23 Content is Profit
    1:00:25 wherever you get your podcasts.

    Want Sam’s Playbook to Uncover Hidden Business Opportunities? Get it here: https://clickhubspot.com/pcf

    Episode 727: Shaan Puri ( https://x.com/ShaanVP ) sits down with his brother-in-law Sanjiv Chopra to talk about how he went from $15M in debt to a real estate portfolio of $1.5B.

    Show Notes:

    (0:00) Intro

    (3:37) $15M in debt on first deal

    (12:30) Pawning my wife’s wedding ring to buy a gym

    (19:41) Turning a broken gym around

    (22:02) Referral marketing

    (29:48) Double escrow

    (36:11) Shopping centers

    (40:20) What a Good Real Estate Deal Looks Like

    (44:02) How you act when you lose

    (51:02) Legacy, Balance & Being a Present Dad

    Links:

    • Rhino Investments – https://rhinoinvestmentsgroup.com/

    Check Out Shaan’s Stuff:

    • Shaan’s weekly email – https://www.shaanpuri.com

    • Visit https://www.somewhere.com/mfm to hire worldwide talent like Shaan and get $500 off for being an MFM listener. Hire developers, assistants, marketing pros, sales teams and more for 80% less than US equivalents.

    • Mercury – Need a bank for your company? Go check out Mercury (mercury.com). Shaan uses it for all of his companies!

    Mercury is a financial technology company, not an FDIC-insured bank. Banking services provided by Choice Financial Group, Column, N.A., and Evolve Bank & Trust, Members FDIC

    Check Out Sam’s Stuff:

    • Hampton – https://www.joinhampton.com/

    • Ideation Bootcamp – https://www.ideationbootcamp.co/

    • Copy That – https://copythat.com

    • Hampton Wealth Survey – https://joinhampton.com/wealth

    • Sam’s List – http://samslist.co/

    My First Million is a HubSpot Original Podcast // Brought to you by HubSpot Media // Production by Arie Desormeaux // Editing by Ezra Bakker Trupiano