Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
TBPN is a live tech talk show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays, streaming weekdays from 11–2 PT on X and YouTube, with full episodes posted to Spotify immediately after airing.
Described by The New York Times as “Silicon Valley’s newest obsession,” TBPN has interviewed Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Mark Cuban, and Satya Nadella. Diet TBPN delivers the best moments from each episode in under 30 minutes.
Film is the process of capturing images digitally or using celluloid. Do you know about celluloid? No. This is right. Right?
Speaker 1:Right? The filmmaker's in the back now. So you you used to used to need a specific chemical process. You'd probably be very hands off on this process, but you used to create a strip of of film with the thin it's clear, and you put some chemicals on it. And then when light hits it, if if a lot of light hits it, it makes it black, and then that's the negative.
Speaker 1:And then they flip that around by shining light through it to then expose the final picture. And then you get a beautiful movie that you get to watch at the cinema. Interesting to know how Netflix will change their tune on theaters. So Ted Sarandos has been basically trash talking movie theaters for a long time being like Netflix is the future, tech is the future. He hasn't been super rude or anything, but he's been like, it's not really key to our strategy.
Speaker 1:Then as soon as he was in the deal for Warner Brothers, he was like, yeah, the theater's amazing. It's not going anywhere.
Speaker 2:Netflix is up 22%.
Speaker 1:Oh, yeah. The stock the shareholders They hated the hated Loves the
Speaker 2:getting your enemy to overpay for a handful a basket of legacy assets.
Speaker 1:Yeah. There is another thesis on why Netflix stock has mooned. And it's mostly around this concept that Ted Sarandos just stunned in a pair of jeans at the SAG Awards. So look at this. I mean, you see this.
Speaker 1:How can you not want to buy the stock? This is not financial advice, but you see a guy pull up in a fit like that, you're like, this is gonna moon. I gotta get in. I'm going turbo long. I'm top blasting.
Speaker 1:You're buying the dip if it's dipping.
Speaker 3:Top blasting.
Speaker 1:You're top blasting and you're buying the dip when you see a man pull up in $2,800,000,000 jeans because that's the amount of money that Netflix got wired because of this deal. That was the breakup fee. There's a ton of debt going into this deal. Will I be able to watch The Sopranos on Netflix? Will I be able to watch The Dark Knight on Netflix?
Speaker 1:It's a complicated question because content licensing deals are not they're not one size fits all. They're subject to windowing and certain markets. So if Netflix has really high penetration in Germany and HBO doesn't, it might make sense to license it there but not elsewhere. But I just want to know broadly, like, what do we expect from Paramount, Skydance, Warner Bros, Discovery, CBS, CNN? I think they have Shark Week now, right?
Speaker 1:Is in Discovery. They got the Food Network, HGTV. You can watch the Property Brothers. Maybe on Netflix one day. Who knows?
Speaker 1:But this is like the most extreme scenario. And we talked about a post where someone was like, oh, like, masterful three d chess. They got Netflix got Paramount overpay for this. And now they're going to be so indebted because the deal got so big that they're just going to have to come to us and license 100% of the catalog on day one. I don't know if that's true, so I wanted to dig into it.
Speaker 1:Let's talk about it. So just to recap and set the table, David Ellison, who is the Chairman and the CEO of Paramount Skydance, agreed to raise his offer for Warner Bros. Discovery to $31 a share. A lot of people, myself somewhat included, thought that Netflix was at least going to counter a little bit, but they folded immediately. So the co CEOs, Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, they didn't counter.
Speaker 1:And they said, you got it? Wire us the 2.8 b. And they did. So the result is that David Ellison is handing over a $111,000,000,000 in exchange for Warner Brothers, HBO Max, CNN, and the other cable networks. There was this whole political angle in DC about how interested would Trump be in the deal.
Speaker 1:And apparently, as soon as he found out that Netflix was not interested in the cable TV assets, he became less interested in the deal because I think he he watches a lot of news, but he probably doesn't watch a lot of Batman reboots and doesn't really care what happens there. And so it's just like a different thing. He's not turning on the latest DC cinematic universe film and be like, they're taking shots at me. But if he turns on CNN and they're taking shots at him, he's like, I care about that. In terms of the financial situation, they're levering up.
Speaker 1:They took our advice. When we started the show, we told everyone rule number one is lever up. And they did. So Paramount is already levered. 10,000,000,000
Speaker 2:in Yeah, net
Speaker 1:to the gills. $10,000,000,000 of net debt. It's like $13,000,000,000 but they have $3,000,000,000 in cash. So $10,000,000,000 in net debt, 3,000,000,000 of adjusted EBITDA with which to service that debt. Reasonable, but still pretty high leverage, three x.
Speaker 1:Paramount will be adding $60,000,000,000 of debt. So all combined, the company wants something like $70,000,000,000 of net debt, 79,000,000,000 of total debt, with roughly $12,000,000,000 of adjusted EBITDA. When you're operating north of 6x leverage, that leads to different decision making. Higher discount rates, higher interest rates. It can shift the focus to near term cash.
Speaker 1:So Netflix is a logical counterparty here because it can pay. It has the cash. It has a lot of cash flow to pay for global rights at scale and is has a long history of paying top dollar to deploy capital to known franchises. And also, Netflix is in a particularly interesting financial position. So they've been an incredible case study for operating leverage, a true overnight success, something like twenty years grinding Grinding up success.
Speaker 1:Grinding up the subscribers, grinding up the revenue, investing more and more in content. And if we can pull up the chart, you will see the small bars, the red bars are the revenue. And the little dots that have the numbers on them, which you can't really see, show how much they're investing in content. And so for a long time, for something like almost, from 2002 to 2018, so sixteen years. Netflix was like, we made $100,000,000 Let's make $100,000,000 worth of content.
Speaker 1:Let's buy $100,000,000 worth of content. And then they were like, wait, we made $1,000,000,000 You're never going to guess what we're going to spend on content. Exactly $1,000,000,000 And then they were like, Okay, we made $10,000,000,000 This is going to shock you, but we're spending $10,000,000,000 on content. And so they would just spend exactly what they made on content. But that changed.
Speaker 1:That changed in 2019, 2020, COVID, the amount of subscribers spiked, the amount of revenue spiked, then they launched the ad model. It took them a while to figure that out, but eventually worked. And the business kept growing. The top line kept growing, but they ran out of stuff to buy. They ran out of stuff to make.
Speaker 1:And even though they were paying top dollar for all these different assets, they sort of held their content budget flat. Their revenue went up, and that's, of course, operating leverage. So profits to pay for Warner Bros. Discovery assets potentially. And so they have the money to spend, but also they're direct competitors in streaming with Paramount plus and HBO Max.
Speaker 1:And so there's a question about how friendly will they be. If you license all the good HBO stuff, people will unsubscribe from HBO.
Speaker 2:Yeah, or Paramount.
Speaker 1:Or Paramount.
Speaker 2:Yeah, exactly. It just makes the Paramount subscription offering less competitive.
Speaker 1:Totally, totally. There's potentially this idea that regulators might attach a condition to the deal or at least signal or put pressure that the combined entity should maintain its tradition of licensing and selling content.
Speaker 2:Laughlin yesterday said this is Fox CEO, Laughlin. Murdoch expects that regulators will impose a third party content licensing condition on Paramount and Warner Brothers Discovery's $110,000,000,000 merger. He said, we wish them the best of luck. We've seen this regardless of whether it was Netflix acquiring Warner Brothers Discovery or Paramount acquiring Warner Brothers Discovery, there will be conditions put on this transaction which would require a producer of that size to continue to sell their content to third party platforms. This was yesterday.
Speaker 1:I ballparked it at like maybe 70% chance that in the next two years, there's some sort of meaningful content licensing deal between Paramount, Warner Brothers Discovery, and Netflix. But I do think that there will be limited windows, some selection in markets where content is available, and pretty much everything will be nonexclusive. So the real key brand assets like the Sopranos and the DC Universe properties, those are much less likely to be licensed. And there's basically no world where Netflix gets the first streaming rights to tentpoles. You want to maintain those.
Speaker 1:You want to give the super fans a reason to stay subscribed to begin a subscription on your now two streaming platforms. There is a lot of potential upside for the Ellison Empire. I think of this like buying a house and then getting a roommate. Like, you you you you you're levered up. You got a crazy mortgage.
Speaker 2:That's such a good example. Right?
Speaker 1:You you you buy a house.
Speaker 2:You live in large, but
Speaker 1:But you got a roommate. Yeah. And the roommate's Netflix, and they're paying the rent to you. You pay the mortgage.
Speaker 2:And you kinda hate your roommate.
Speaker 1:You kinda hate your roommate, but
Speaker 2:But
Speaker 1:your long the real estate market. And then as you get promotions, as you get more cash flow, as you get more adjusted EBITDA, you can pay your mortgage. And as you pay your mortgage down, you wind up with a really cool asset, which is this nice house that actually has the extra bedroom.
Speaker 2:They're like, look, we had a good run. I really love the way you would put dishes in the sink and not do them. Really love the way you would watch movies loud into the night and yell. But I think it's time
Speaker 1:It's for us time for you to move out, I'm going take the mortgage myself. I'm good for the full bill every month. I'm good. But there are a lot of similarities, right? Because what are you getting with Warner Bros?
Speaker 1:You're getting a whole library of IP that's very valuable potentially for like one hundred years. And so if you believe that intellectual property will have a very, very long life time lifespan, and it's incredibly valuable, but you have to finance it with debt, you have to work really hard to pay the bills in the short term, you could wind up with a really great asset even if you have that roommate for the short term. The other interesting question was what does this reveal about the Ellison family's worldview for the future? On the one end of the spectrum, you have Larry Ellison who seems incredibly AGI pilled. He's going crazy into AI data centers.
Speaker 1:You disagree with this?
Speaker 3:Well, I I think remember I think we did like the the chart of Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Who's the most AGI
Speaker 1:needs AGI versus AGI pilled.
Speaker 3:So he needs AGI, but he's not AGI pilled.
Speaker 1:Why is he not AGI pilled? Oh, just because of his rhetoric? He just doesn't Get do that many him onto our cash. We'll see what he says. Maybe his timeline's like ASI next month.
Speaker 1:Who
Speaker 3:knows? His actions So you
Speaker 1:need to sit down your
Speaker 3:is family today. Obviously very AGI pilled.
Speaker 1:Does he have a Mac mini? That's the real question. Funding data centers is generally aligned with a future where AI is an important technology.
Speaker 3:Yeah, levering up massively, right?
Speaker 1:Yes, levering up a
Speaker 3:big believes that AI is going be big, right?
Speaker 1:Yes, yeah, yeah. In order to collect the underwrite. He believes AI is going to be big, but then he also believes, or, you know, in concert with David, his son, believes that AI will not destroy legacy Hollywood assets. No matter how many dollars you have, no matter how much compute you have, no matter how many generations you can use the latest video model, you will not just be able to create a a, you know, a superhero that kids will dress up as at Halloween. And I think that's true, and I believe both of these.
Speaker 1:You don't? You're gonna be dressing up as Slotman next
Speaker 2:next Slotman.
Speaker 1:Next Halloween. Slotman. You're gonna be woah. You don't know this superhero that I prompted myself, and and no one knows but me? It's a it's a highly don't you know the the Internet's highly personalized now?
Speaker 3:But you can dress up as, like, a superhero who who has, like, these black ears and, like, looks very similar to Batman, but it's not Batman.
Speaker 1:Not the non IP infringing Batman?
Speaker 3:I think the yeah.
Speaker 2:Literally describing Slotman.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Slotman. You're gonna dress up as the knockoff Slotman. So maybe that's not your worldview, Tyler, but it's clearly the worldview of the Ellison family because they believe in this barbell effect.
Speaker 2:You know, another way to look at it is like you could get this hyper personalization, but it could be around existing IP. So you get to watch a personalized version of Batman content that's targeted just for you individually, but the kids are still dressing up as Batman.
Speaker 1:And we've already seen a glimpse of this with video games. There are video games that leverage existing intellectual property, but allow you to customize your character in some way, put more skill points into intelligence and cast spells versus strength and use a sword. Right? Like, you can have your own experience if you play even like the Arkham Batman series. It's pretty linear, but you can play it more aggressively.
Speaker 1:You can play it more stealthily. And that allows you to experience something that is unifying and we can discuss, okay, you played same game as me. You understand the same character as me, but we had a different experience. And I think AI accelerates that and makes it more more more valuable, not less. This is the ninth or tenth time that Warner Brothers has changed hands since it became an independent movie studio in 1923.
Speaker 1:There's some of those acquisitions that have been like divestitures or reorganizations within other companies. But I do think that David Ellison is going go the long distance with this. Think with a little careful financial management and probably some few a few content licensing deals, like this might be the last one. He's been working in Hollywood since he was a kid and has been very dedicated to this particular industry for a very long time. And so I don't think he's going anywhere.
Speaker 2:And if you are inspired by the whole Netflix Warner Brothers saga, you should head over to the Goodwill in Downtown Brooklyn. Tom from Vanity Fair says for $14.99, you can Zaslav Max this spring. They're selling a nice Port Authority puffer vest from Warner Brothers Discovery. That is a good pickup.
Speaker 1:Zaslav is a deals guy, hall of famer for sure.
Speaker 2:According to the Washington Post, there was a researcher skeptical of Havana syndrome. So he tested a secret weapon on himself. In 2024, a Norwegian researcher skeptical that pulsed energy weapons could do damage to human brains, built a device and test it on himself. It didn't go well. Built it, tested it.
Speaker 1:Working in secrecy working in strict secrecy, a government scientist in Norway built a machine capable of emitting powerful pulses of microwave energy. And in an effort to prove such devices are harmless to humans in 2024, he tested on himself. He suffered neurological symptoms similar to those of Favanna syndrome, the unexplained malady that has struck hundreds of US spies and diplomats around the world.
Speaker 2:Yeah. We don't know how to make scientists like this anymore. Glad they're still
Speaker 3:out there.
Speaker 1:Extremely bullish for the tinfoil hat industry because I believe that the the the the actual underlying basis for the idea of a tinfoil hat, of course, we use it somewhat sarcastically here when we're discussing hypothetical conspiracy theories. But the tinfoil hat is supposed to eliminate microwave radiation and various EMF pulses. And so if you're worried about getting Havana syndrome, maybe pick up an EMF proof tinfoil
Speaker 2:hat. Thomas Maxwell says we have to stop this. I'm not eating a quote Jacob. Eat a Jacob. I haven't seen this one before.
Speaker 2:It's 20 grams of grass fed protein, no seed oils, nothing artificial, sweetened with organic honey. Definitely resonated. 24,000 people agree. Tyler, you should you should do a taste test of all the different protein bars
Speaker 3:All the bars named after guys.
Speaker 2:Just regular dudes. David Bar, the Jacob Bar, 's probably more. You gotta get on it.
Speaker 1:Lucy, named after a person. It was a whole trend for a while.
Speaker 2:Cursor would like a word. Yeah. Was staggering. This was great. Incredible.
Speaker 2:They came out yesterday. They had heard the FUD on the timeline around Yeah. Cursor. They came out yesterday and Bloomberg got some of their data. Their annual revenue topped 2,000,000,000 in February
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:According to a source, a figure that underscores the fast growth of the coding assistant. Sasha summed it up well. He said, Cursor sees the timeline turning against them. Quietly give Bloomberg a 2,000,000,000 ARR press release. No post from the company or founders.
Speaker 2:Haters squash through comms master class. Michael Truel actually did come out this morning and says, we believe Cursor discovered a novel solution to problem six of the first proof challenges. Instead of math research problems approximate the work of Stanford, MIT, Berkeley. Cursor solution yields stronger results than the official human written solution. Notably, used the same harness that we built a browser from scratch a few weeks ago.
Speaker 2:It ran fully autonomously without nudging our hints for four days. This suggests that our technique for scaling agent coordination might generalize beyond coding. Very, very cool to see the progress from them and clearly doing something right in the enterprise, right? Just because everything that you see on the timeline is like so many enthusiasts.
Speaker 1:One of my buddies is Kyle Russell. I worked with him like a decade ago. He's at a company called Valen. And he posted so Valen, they make SaaS for mortgage services. He says it's very boring, but we're basically getting them all to flip from legacy software and a rate limited by BizOps people being able to onboard them.
Speaker 1:So we're going to try instead to think about it in terms of what tokens do we need to extract from the org in order to deploy fast. So he's in this like AI deployment lead role. And he went, I think, pretty viral, saying, this morning, one person on his team said, 'Hey, can you unsub me from cursor?' somebody says, Done. And then a bunch of people said, Same, same, like, I don't need it. I'm like, I'm happy with another program.
Speaker 1:And Kyle said, Today, we announced we're removing 90 Cursor seats because they haven't had any use in two weeks. And it is like it's flipped from like the most cutting edge thing to like, it's clearly very sticky because you see the ARR numbers that this like ultra frontier coolest, hottest thing is getting some like FUD. And then Sasha broke this down where he was like, the timeline's turning against him. So you have to provide some evidence that you're not cooked because the timeline is very much like, oh, well, you're not the hottest thing anymore. You're not the coolest little thing for, like, the people that are on the most frontier.
Speaker 2:Up from $1,000,000,000 in Q4, which is just insane.
Speaker 1:Yeah. And so, yeah, I mean, I think, like, there's just something about it goes back to diffusion. We were I was debating this with Tyler last night about how much of AI adoption is just actually getting the forward deployed engineer in, actually getting people to change their workflows, onboarding. Like there are certain people that will just bounce from the most frontier thing. Oh, this model is better.
Speaker 1:I'm on Codex. I'm on Claude. I'm on Codex. I'm on Claude. Back and forth.
Speaker 1:But for a lot of companies, they need a little bit more handholding. And so there's a whole massive chunk of the economy that can be transformed by developing great products and then actually getting them in the hands of businesses. Well, in some good news, Mark Zuckerberg has purchased a mansion in Miami for $170,000,000. This was such big news that we had to pull it forward from the mansion section on Friday. Let's talk about it today.
Speaker 1:But there is a little bit of a black belt here. We can go into it.
Speaker 2:No. Of course, Mark got this because of California's wealth tax, which
Speaker 1:That's what it feels
Speaker 2:like. If it goes through, he would still be subject to
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:At least a one time Yes. Payment, you know, which would which would get litigated, of course. What we need now is a picture of him in his backyard recreating the Ben Affleck smoking meme. Wait. Why?
Speaker 2:Because there's this new national wealth tax that Rov Conner and Bernie Sanders So are he's like, he just he just moved. He just got this new place across the country
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Probably overpaid to to a degree.
Speaker 1:People are just gonna be like, actually, I live in international waters full time. I don't live on I don't live in America. I don't live in any country, actually. Yeah. I live in space.
Speaker 1:I live I live on the International Space Station or something. A $170,000,000 sounds staggering. By a 5% tax on Mark Zuckerberg's wealth, over $11,000,000,000, that should have been his shopping budget. Because in in dude math, if you save money, you just have a free license to spend it. So you're like, by moving to Florida, I'm effectively saving myself $11,000,000,000 I can spend that, right?
Speaker 1:Isn't that how that works?
Speaker 2:Exactly.
Speaker 1:Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Chan, have paid $170,000,000 for an under construction mansion on Miami sought after Indian Creek Island. The deal closed Monday. The purchase set a record in one of the country's most expensive to date. The current U. S.
Speaker 1:Record is held by billionaire Ken Griffin. He spent $238,000,000 for an apartment. That is a crazy amount of money for an apartment, but I guess it's in a good building.
Speaker 2:This is a lot of apartments.
Speaker 1:The Florida record was set last year when a waterfront compound in Naples traded for $225,000,000 I feel like this isn't counting Ken Griffin's compound that he's building because he's building
Speaker 2:Yeah, because it's multiple properties.
Speaker 1:He's bought multiple properties.
Speaker 2:Okay, here's where it gets crazy though. Sellers are Doctor. Aaron Rollins, a cosmetic surgeon to the start, and his wife, real estate agent, Marine Rollins. The Rollins' paid more than $30,000,000 for the roughly two acre site in 2020.
Speaker 1:Wow. Flipping. Not Real estate agent, don't want to go up against them. They know what they're doing.
Speaker 2:Plans called for a nine bedroom home measuring about 30,000 square feet with a dock and a swimming pool. Yeah. Amenities were to include gym, hair salon, and massage room, as well as a 1,500 gallon aquarium and library with a secret passageway.
Speaker 1:Zuck does need a hair salon in his house because he's always changing his hairstyle. Sometimes he got the Caesar going. Sometimes he got the fro going.
Speaker 2:This is Gen Z.
Speaker 1:This is elite for him. Who knows what'll go next? Maybe he'll have long flowing locks like Fabio. Credit where credit is due. China really nailed the Bond villain aesthetic with their Antarctic research based Quinling?
Speaker 1:Chinling?
Speaker 2:Okay. These are just renders, though.
Speaker 1:These are renders. This is what they're thinking about
Speaker 2:building. If it was real, I'd be telling Tyler to get a Get down there. Boat immediately. Tyler was in Arizona over the weekend and sent us a very cool picture of him out at TSM. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Give us a review. Did you feel the power? Did you feel like visiting Iraqis? I mean,
Speaker 3:yeah. Was, like, 91 degrees. Okay. Extremely hot. It Mhmm.
Speaker 3:It's massive. Massive facility. They're still building. Like, there's, like, there were two kind of main sections. I I couldn't actually tell, like, what parts they were.
Speaker 3:Yeah. There were signs. There there were a bunch of fabs. I I think I took a picture next to, like, Fab 21 or something. Wow.
Speaker 3:But there's, like, there's so much building going on. And it's just, it's basically North Of Phoenix. Yeah. And so there's like 10 mile radius where it's just like basically just empty land. They're they're flattening the desert.
Speaker 3:Woah. But yeah. Very very cool.
Speaker 1:Give it shot?
Speaker 3:Fun to walk. No. They didn't let us in. There's a a ton of security around. At at every gate, I I wanted to go in and take a tour or
Speaker 1:something like that. I a wanna wafer that didn't make it through quality control and get some of the chip the chip CEOs to sign that. Moving on. The what is it? The the the the billionaire tax has gone national.
Speaker 1:Bernie Sanders is proposing bringing it to The United States broadly at the federal level. Bad news for everyone who migrated to Miami or Florida because it is going to follow you wherever you go. Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders are proposing a national wealth tax on billionaires going even further than California. They want 5% unrealized wealth tax to be annual. Every year.
Speaker 1:Every year. That would be
Speaker 2:I've seen some people running the numbers on on like, oh, if Jeff if this tax had been in place since 1999, Jeff Bezos would still be worth 61,000,000,000 and he could still afford his $500,000,000 mega yacht, just not actually processing all the negative externalities of something like this. I just just
Speaker 1:Turns out into a PE backed shell pretty quickly because you lose control. Right?
Speaker 2:Yeah. That or or Amazon never even gets the the level of investment that it got Sure. Because of capital flight. I I would be so much more sympathetic to Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders on this if they had like, here's five case studies where wealth taxes worked. Yeah.
Speaker 2:And like, they can't come up with a single one. Yeah. And so it just feels like
Speaker 1:50% over ten years. That is a lot. But the implementation of this tax would ultimate ultimately create wealth flights as Chris with withins. The wealthy are wealthy because they fight to preserve their wealth. So in year one, the base is already decimated.
Speaker 1:Then every single year afterwards, the remaining billionaires leave or hide their assets. Meanwhile, the markets are all declining all this time because they see that America has been infiltrated by destroying communists. Chris is not a fan.
Speaker 2:There's something like 8,000,000,000,000 of billionaire wealth and a 160 to a 170 of middle class wealth. So that is the real prize pool.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And and again, hopefully hopefully, our lawmakers and voters process how ridiculous this is
Speaker 1:Find another way.
Speaker 2:And reject it.
Speaker 1:Write the balance sheet of the US government.
Speaker 2:Her, the market is only down point o 8% year to date. Things must be really calm. Right?
Speaker 1:This is actually crazy. If you asked me where the market was and I hadn't looked, what is this from? What movie is this? Is this AI or something? This is a crazy scene.
Speaker 1:I really like this is a good this is a good meme template. I haven't used this before.
Speaker 3:Is it from Maze Runner?
Speaker 1:Oh, maybe Maze Runner. Don't know. Okay.
Speaker 2:Doomer says the past looks more like the future than the present does. Let's pull up. What is this? PM's Phoenix, an expandable van you can build for $2,000.
Speaker 1:This is sick. Most campers and vans these days that are roomy enough to live in are too large for comfortable driving. Conversely, the compact, fun drivable rigs are usually too small to live in. And no matter what its size, the seller will probably want all the money you have now plus most of what you'll make in the next five years. This is a good copy.
Speaker 2:I like that. So this was in Popular Mechanics in 1978.
Speaker 1:This is a good daily. Someone should pick
Speaker 2:this Built on
Speaker 1:a Volkswagen minibus chassis. I like that they restyled the the front cab as well. Truck camper back end looks pretty similar. But it still feels odd to take an electric vehicle into the wilderness. I don't know why.
Speaker 1:Because it's not like you're bringing a bunch of not like there's a gas station out in the middle of nowhere. But this would give me range anxiety, even though I think that's deeply fake at this point. New model alert. New model alert. What we got?
Speaker 2:Introducing Logan's introducing Gemini 3.1 Flashlight, a huge step forward on the boundary of intelligence beating 2.5 Flash on many tasks. Tyler, should try to do a speed check. OpenAI also came out this morning with 5.3 instant Okay. Touting increased accuracy.
Speaker 1:Is this in ChatGPT? Because I feel like I've had 5.3 in codecs but not oh, I got yeah. I have 5.3 instant in chatgpt.com now. Interesting.
Speaker 2:I do not yet. Very cool. Calci partnered with Bezel Oh, yeah. To It's
Speaker 1:a good collab.
Speaker 2:People to trade price movements of iconic watches. So we can pull up this video. This basically allows you to trade on the prices of Rolexes for the month of March. Basically, is price going to move up or down? So Quaid over at Bezel has been telling us about this one.
Speaker 1:So you could, in theory, buy a watch on Bezel and then take out a short position on Calci and have a market neutral Submariner or something, right? Because if the price goes up, you
Speaker 2:own It's not just any watch. It's a market neutral sell.
Speaker 1:It's market neutral. Because if the market crashes, you make money on Cauchy, but you lost money on the watch, you're neutral. You can hedge yourself now. That's very bizarre.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I saw somebody pushing back being like, oh, you can this is silly. You could just buy the watches and actually trade them. But obviously, it's quite a bit more complicated.
Speaker 1:Well, you can't sell one that you don't have. Now you can short watches. I want talk about fast food CEOs.
Speaker 2:Let's pull up this video of McDonald's CEO.
Speaker 1:We never watched this all the way through. This is McDonald's CEO Chris Kempenzinski. He went viral after seeming reluctant to eat his own burgers. He takes a tiny bite, looks uncomfortable, and calls the food product. That's the here, size of it.
Speaker 4:With, you've heard about it The big arch. Here it is. The big arch. This
Speaker 1:is big.
Speaker 4:This is something that we have tested already. It's an Or humans.
Speaker 1:Germany can. On animals.
Speaker 4:I love this product. It is so good. I'm gonna do a tasting right now, but I'm gonna eat this for my lunch, just so you know. So here we go. First,
Speaker 1:If I can we'll survive make a single meal,
Speaker 4:We've it's a good number for got a very unique kind of sesame, poppy sort of bun batten on it.
Speaker 1:Presentation, We've
Speaker 4:got I two quarter pound patties, delicious big arch sauce.
Speaker 1:It's probably his first TikTok. So oh,
Speaker 4:there's so much going on with this. First of all, let's try to get this thing I don't even know how to attack it. Got so much to it. I like There's also some crispy onions on here as well. You see those kinda coming out.
Speaker 1:He's stoked. Alright. Met the CEO of of, McDonald's, the previous CEO at South by Southwest
Speaker 2:in, like,
Speaker 1:2013. That is so good.
Speaker 4:That's a big bite for a big art.
Speaker 1:That's a
Speaker 4:huge burger. Distinctively McDonald's only No.
Speaker 2:Undeniably not that big of a bite. Yeah. Not that big of a bite. You just kinda
Speaker 1:But eating on camera is so hard. If you just start housing that thing, there's gonna be a whole different set of backlash.
Speaker 2:Definitely looked like his first ever bite of a burger.
Speaker 1:Yeah. It was not a strong performance. Lulu said lay up opportunity for the number two ranked fast food chain CEO to film a brutal
Speaker 2:And I think somebody did. We can pull up another video here.
Speaker 1:Someone someone did it.
Speaker 2:There's someone saying Japanese mega We writer
Speaker 1:gotta watch.
Speaker 2:Trying to write Americans. The CEO would perhaps compete over who would take the manliest bite of a burger. Now that's ridiculous. Surely America cannot be like that.
Speaker 1:Okay. Well, watch this. Burger King? Oh, that's a big bite. That's a real bite.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I'm a Burger King guy now. He won me over very, very well. It's this guy seems like he he he can flip burgers. He can he can take bites of burgers.
Speaker 2:I saw another video of Chris, the McDonald's CEO, coming out on his personal Instagram saying he eats he wanted to clarify that he does eat McDonald's three or four times a week, he said. And so he is defending his honor.
Speaker 1:McDonald's is
Speaker 2:great. I love this product.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:I love this product. That's what every that's what every chef says after they bring out a meal. They say, I love this product. I think you will, too.
Speaker 1:He's a business guy. I don't have a problem with that. Refer to it as product. Go off. I stand by it.
Speaker 1:I think it's great.
Speaker 2:Thank you for being with us. We will be back
Speaker 1:Tomorrow? Tomorrow. 11AM.
Speaker 2:I cannot wait.
Speaker 3:I cannot wait.
Speaker 2:I cannot wait. You. Do it. Goodbye.