Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Technology's daily show (formerly the Technology Brothers Podcast). Streaming live on X and YouTube from 11 - 2 PM PST Monday - Friday. Available on X, Apple, Spotify, and YouTube.
Welcome to technology brothers, the number one live show in tech. We are live from the Temple Of Technology, the fortress of finance, the capital of capital. Today is, Thursday, 02/13/2025. '1 day until Valentine's Day. We did our Valentine's Day guide yesterday, and we hope you've picked out some fantastic gifts for your loved ones.
Speaker 1:This show starts now. Jordy, how are you doing?
Speaker 2:My lovely wife, listened to the full episode yesterday, and she was very fixated on the gift guide and was very excited about, you know, what we were sort of recommending. And so Yeah. Expectation expectations going into tomorrow are, you know, at a fever pitch, basically. So, wish me luck, everybody. Yeah.
Speaker 2:I don't wanna I don't wanna disappoint.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Bad day to be a Bentley dealer if Yeah. Jordy's walking in. Yeah. That's great.
Speaker 1:Well, we got a fantastic show for everyone. We got a bunch of fundraising news. Mercury, FAL, Harvey. We got stories about the transformer shortage. We're we can't even get enough power for these AI companies.
Speaker 1:Two iconic tech people did interviews. We're gonna cover both of them. First, Uber CEO, Dara Khoswachari, and second, Theranos, former CEO, Elizabeth Holmes. She did hers in people. Dara went to Stratechery.
Speaker 1:Little bit of different outlets, but great content, and we'll cover it here, and then we'll go through the timeline. But first, I wanted to open with a, a little story from none other than David Senra, founders podcast, the godfather of podcasting, the podfather, one of the greatest ever dude. He says, when James Cameron was 20, he was a truck driver. He decides he wants to be a filmmaker, but he can't afford to go to film school. This was how he solved that problem and what a high agency person looks like.
Speaker 1:He'd go to the stacks at the library at USC, home of a vaunted filmmaking program Cameron couldn't afford. I'd find somebody's 300 page dissertation on optical printing, Cameron said, and I'd be going through it. And I'd think, well, I gotta get this. So I'd pull the staples out, and I'd photocopy the entire 300 pages. And then I kept just doing the same thing week after week for about six months.
Speaker 1:And I'm driving a truck, but I had these binders, sodium process, blue screen, optical printing, film stock, emulsions, lenses, cinematography. I was going through this stuff chapter and verse and making my own notes and all of that. I basically gave myself a college education in visual effects and cinematography while I was driving a truck.
Speaker 2:Okay. So
Speaker 1:a couple hundred a hundred dollars in photocopying. He essentially put himself through a graduate course in visual effects at the top film school in the country without ever meeting a single professor. Jordy.
Speaker 2:Amazing story. What an icon. My my question becomes, you know, this was pre cell phone era. Was he learning and driving? You know?
Speaker 2:Did he have his binders? Like, was did he have his binders up basically, like, on the steering wheel and he was kinda, like, reading? Like, imagine being slammed, you know, rear end of the camera, and he's just like, oh, sorry. Yeah. He's
Speaker 1:reading about blue
Speaker 2:screen and green screen. He's reading about optic film stock emulsions. And, you know, that that was a that was a different era, but, I'm glad he, you know, he made it out. And I'm glad I'm glad he did that. But, it's crazy because that that's just, like, free Internet, and all of that information is a hundred thousand, 10 thousand times more of it.
Speaker 1:So much more accessible for sure. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's so much more accessible. But, yeah, autodidactism has been a driving force behind entrepreneurship for a very long time.
Speaker 1:It's kind of unclear if you can teach it, but, yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2:I've seen the same experiences. The Dyson story is very similar. Right? He's just like, I'm going to make a vacuum and then just, you know, spend a decade learning how to make the best vacuums, then That's awesome. Becomes a goat.
Speaker 1:Rocks. Wild. But yeah. I mean, I love this. And I and I think why this resonates with me so so much is that you can tell that even though James Cameron is like a Hollywood guy, he's a filmmaker.
Speaker 1:It's a very, it's a very word cell industry. He is the shape rotator of the word cell industry in the sense that, like, he is obsessed with the science behind film emulsion and how VFX work and the blue screen. And, of course, he also understands storytelling, acting, and emotion, and all the different things that go into making a movie. But he doesn't shy away from the technical side, and I think that's why this resonates with me so much.
Speaker 2:Yeah. The the technical side. And then later in his career, he gets into submarines, which is every man's dream. Right? I like, one of the most one of the best ways I know to get to sleep is learning about narco submarines that they had built in the it's like the most, it's the most fun, fascinating content.
Speaker 2:I'm like, these guys are going to, you know, build the submarine in the jungle, take it out, drop it in the water and, you know, basically take millions of dollars of of their CPG product across the world. What how fantastic is that? But, you can imagine he brought that sort of, like, you know, just obsessive learning approach. You can imagine he brought that just obsessive approach to building his own, you know, submarine, which, of course, he had, you know, teams of people work on, but, still very impressive.
Speaker 1:Well, let's move on to some insane fundraising news. Sequoia has been on an absolute terror. Holy Trinity firms. They just don't, they just don't take a break. We got two massive fundraising nouns, fundraising rounds from Sequoia.
Speaker 1:Let's kick it off with the mercury investment, Sequoia to lead mercury investment at over $3,000,000,000 in value. FinTech is indeed so back. Kate Clark got the scoop over at Bloomberg. Let's break it down. Sequoia capitalism talks.
Speaker 1:What?
Speaker 2:This was a big mix up by the way, because you remember Kate Clark Clark was a scoop queen over at the information for a long time. And so Bloomberg,
Speaker 1:you know, probably scooped the scooped queen.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. She scooped scooped. It was a super scoop. Well said.
Speaker 1:Super scoop.
Speaker 2:But they had to they had to have taken out a max contract to get to get her because, you know, the information, you know, she was a a core piece of their, you know, team.
Speaker 1:Well, she might have broken the news that Sequoia Capital is investing in Mercury Technologies, but we're breaking the news that Kate Clark broke the news. So stay tuned. Sequoia Capital is in talks to lead an investment in digital banking startup Mercury Technologies at evaluation more than $3,000,000,000. According to a person familiar with the matter, there's one guy in in Silicon Valley who leaked this. Who is it?
Speaker 1:Who could it possibly be?
Speaker 2:Well, so the other thing
Speaker 1:somebody is it a lawyer? Is it somebody at Sequoia?
Speaker 2:Well, so the other the other thing is, the account are are for rock
Speaker 1:Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2:Actually ended up leaking just the details, like, directly. So it's very possible that it was whoever runs ARFOR that just, you know, put this out there. No idea that
Speaker 1:And so, FinTech is surging. Their Mercury is based in San Francisco. They're raising hundreds of millions as part of the deal. The company was founded in 2017 by Ahmad, Akund. Actually, good follow on x.
Speaker 1:Highly recommend you go check him out. They have a physical credit card, online banking tools tailored to startups. The company reached $500,000,000 in annualized revenue according to the information, which earlier reported some of the funding details. The deal is expected to double Mercury's valuation from 1,600,000,000.0 in 2021 after it raised a hundred and 20,000,000. Mercury's existing investors include Andreessen Horowitz, Co2 Management, and CRV.
Speaker 1:What's interesting is, so we we have a Mercury account, plays very nicely with Ramp, who we love. And, Sequoia was actually just in the recent Ramp round as well. So, even though, you know, FinTech, it's all a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo, but, you know, these tools do play to play well together in interesting ways.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So one one interesting read into here is one extremely impressive that that Mercury was able to, you know, basically double their 2021 valuation, which was like the peak of reserve. Right? And they did this for a few reasons. One continued to grow and and just sort of compound on their existing base.
Speaker 2:They they have, you know, one of the best banking products in the world. Even if you look at, you know, commercial banking, consumer banking, all this stuff. One thing that's kind of interesting is on that 500,000,000 of annualized revenue, they put up $200,000,000 of EBITDA, which, which is notable because one is just very impressive doing, you know, multiple, you know, nine figures of, of, of actual EBITDA, but they're raising it, you know, they're raising it a $3,000,000,000 valuation. They're actually not getting a lot of credit for that, that earnings. Right?
Speaker 2:Like if you had a pure play SAS company at 500,000,000 of revenue doing 200,000,000 of EBITDA, that would easily be trading it at that could easily trade at $20,000,000,000. Right? You know, Figma, I don't think was anything had anything close to that level of, EBITDA. You're you're getting the size gone already.
Speaker 1:I just heard 200,000,000 of EBITDA, and that doesn't just size going of its own. Okay. That is a good insight.
Speaker 2:But the but the reason they're not actually getting full credit for the the they're not getting priced sort of in a way that that, you know, comparable companies might is because the vast majority of their earnings are from, interest yield. So when you have money in a Mercury checking account, it's like zero percent interest and you can move it to their treasury or savings products and get a little bit more interest. But the majority of startups are sort of like fairly simple in their financial operations so they just keep all the cash in one account. And so, you know, the reason that, you know, Sequoia is clearly willing to pay, you know, you know, values a company at multiple billions of dollars based on everything that they've built, but they're putting a a huge discount on on the revenue because if rates drop over the next few years, a lot of that that that actual, like, profit will just dry up. Right?
Speaker 1:Sure.
Speaker 2:And there's nothing there's nothing that Mercury can necessarily do about that because it's set by that.
Speaker 1:Good take. That's very, yeah, that's very interesting. I like that. And I don't know if you saw the news today, but, where where was it? Hot inflation chills rate cuts on the cover of the Wall Street Journal today.
Speaker 2:It's a 2% rise
Speaker 1:3% likely putting on hold any move by Fed to loosen policy. So based on your analysis, that means, hey, that EBITDA is gonna stick around for a while, but, you know, there's always a risk as things, progress. And it's just Yeah.
Speaker 2:It's just So that's where the discount Yep. Comes to play.
Speaker 1:That's interesting. I I I remember when, the the the Zirp bubble kind of popped and a lot of people were asking, like, who's gonna be the beneficiary? It feels like Mercury might have been the number one beneficiary in the sense that everyone was migrating off of Silicon Valley Bank. So there was this massive, I need a new account, and I think they onboarded a ton of people. Yeah.
Speaker 1:And they built a ton of goodwill, and they didn't you know, that that there was no disruption during that, small local regional bank crisis. Forget exactly what they call it. Yeah. And, obviously, then as interest rates rose, they were able to generate a lot of money, grow their business a ton. And Yeah.
Speaker 1:That is a fascinating story.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And they they went through different they were always positioned as a startup, you know, neobank and Yeah. Got a very dominant position quickly despite facing pressure from Brex. But they actually had a huge amount of their customer base and revenue early on was, companies that were Amazon, you know, sellers that just needed a rest bank account that they could run a bunch of cards spent through. So early on, even in, like, eight twenty, a lot of their revenue would have been from debit card interchange.
Speaker 2:And then suddenly they're making five, five and a half percent on on every dollar on an annualized basis, but they had billions of deposits. Right? So it's a fantastic, fantastic business model, and they don't actually have to do any of the the sort of really complicated sort of higher risk stuff around banking, which is lending because they're a neobank. And one of the things that's also worth noting here is a lot of people are like, well, why is Mercury not buying a bank charter? And the reason for that is that once you have a charter, you're getting highly, highly regulated, and they will force you to diversify your customer base, diversify your sort of business lines and lending practices because the FDIC doesn't want you to, you know, take on all this risk and then go under it.
Speaker 2:Right? Because then they have to bail you out. And so Mercury was able to you know, they've they've hit a few of these different ways, the sort of ecom wave, the general growth and start up investment, and then the post SVB being there to sort of catch the companies that needed a new bank partner. And then the other thing that they did was quickly roll out increased FDIC coverage at the time. I was competing with Mercury, and, we had we offered a 4% sort of annualized deal on balances.
Speaker 2:So it was like a high yield checking product, which was very interesting for companies because if you had a million every million dollars was 40 k a year of of relatively risk free, you know, yield. But then SVB happened, and our bank partner didn't allow us to extend our, FDIC coverage by working with a bank network, and Mercury had enough bankers that they were able to make it happen. And so, that's when we ended up doing the deal with with Roe, who also had, you know, increased FDIC coverage. So, anyways, awesome awesome to see for, you know, clearly, fintech is here to stay. They've had a lot of the industry's had a lot of naysayers over the year, but at the end of the day, the product experience is so much better for customers
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:On on average that these companies are here to stay.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Man, they're like there's something that's so satisfying about I mean, this is the first time I've set up a new company, the TB, since, I guess, 2016. And and everything is just, like, so much So easy. And and it wasn't bad in 2016. Like but even then, you know, Stripe Atlas was working.
Speaker 1:Like, it was
Speaker 2:Here's, like, a here's a crazy operator workflow. You're gonna be able to go into operator. Like, I guarantee you within the next year and say, I wanna create a new company. And it'll ask like, okay, do you wanna see corporate and LLC? Where do you wanna incorporate?
Speaker 2:And it'll ask you for the information and it'll just do it for you. And then it'll be like, alright. I wanna do you want a bank account? And it's like, sure. And it's like, cool.
Speaker 2:I just set you up with Mercury. And it's like, cool. I just set you up with Ram. I just onboarded you to this pay payroll tool. So, like, a single agent will be able to drive this whole experience
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:Which typically, like, in 2016, this was, like, weeks and weeks of kind of, like, administrative paperwork, annoyances, going to a bank, you know, them being like, well, like, you're a startup, so, like, you know, it's gonna take long for
Speaker 1:Yeah. And that's the type of job loss that I I I literally think every every single person in a startup who gets stuck with that operational role is like, I wish I could have been on strategy. I wish I could have been on product. I wish I could have been on sales. There's no one
Speaker 2:who's like,
Speaker 1:oh, yeah. Like, you know, at my startup, I loved being the guy that had to set up payroll. You know? Yeah. It's like and they're looking good.
Speaker 1:They make it doable, but it could be so much better.
Speaker 2:And so the the WARP team, the the payroll product, they they had been working on a a totally different, you know, app, a consumer mobile app, and then they had so much annoyance setting up, print, you know, sort of tax jurisdictions around because they had a lot of remote employees Yeah. That they were like, okay. We're just gonna create a payroll product that just does this stuff automatically. Did you
Speaker 1:know that three of the top 10 most valuable private Y Combinator startups are payroll providers?
Speaker 2:Rippling, Gusto, and Google. And deal. I never knew about deal.
Speaker 1:Yeah. All three of them. I looked at it. I was like, should I start a pay over? Like Yeah.
Speaker 1:I mean,
Speaker 2:like seems like there's,
Speaker 1:like, free money for a while. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Both both, Mercury, you know, we we talk a lot about, you know, some dominant wins from founders fund, of course, and then Sequoia. But both Mercury and deal were seeded and the series a by by Andreessen. So these are huge huge windfall for the firm. Andreessen did the Mercury, seed round, and then they did deal at, you know, mid double digits, post. And that deal now is is is just absolutely awesome.
Speaker 1:They just had a they just had a met, a monster, like, did their quarterly financials leak?
Speaker 2:Or I think they just announced that they're doing, like, 800,000,000 of ARR, which is just, like, you know, insane.
Speaker 1:Lot of money. Well, the funny thing is not only are there, like, three or four dominant startups that are essentially scale ups at this point, like, in the in the multibillion unicorn, decacorn range, in payroll, there are also, like, three to four public companies that are in the, like, tens of billions range, and then there's a couple, like, power law winners that are even bigger. 80 is such a big market because it's just so much it's just all the money flowing around from everyone getting paid, and you just take even the tiniest slice of that and boom, huge company. And so Yeah.
Speaker 2:But I look up
Speaker 1:80% of the bank robbers rob banks? Because that's where the money is. And it's so hard to get money out of out of different parts of the organization. But it but when it's like, yeah, we pay our employees. Our payroll cost is is, you know, 10,000,000, a hundred million a year.
Speaker 1:Sure. You're gonna make that easier. Take point 1%. No problem.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So, just to give you an idea of market size, so one of the biggest players in payroll is, ADP, which stand to great great acronym. Automatically
Speaker 1:public looking this up? Yeah.
Speaker 2:I'm on of course, I'm on public. I'm on it's automatic data processing, and they have 20,000,000,000 of, of TTM revenue and over almost 6,000,000,000 of, of, of EBITDA. And I don't know a single company who, who use it. Like I've got 50 plus companies in my portfolio. I don't know a single one that uses ADP.
Speaker 2:And so it's just very obvious
Speaker 1:I know who use ADP. It's like Disney. You know? Like
Speaker 2:Yeah. Sure. Sure. But but these companies are like cable in the sense that
Speaker 1:Totally.
Speaker 2:You have a bunch of subscribers, you know, contracts locked in that that probably will never turn, but then eventually, the bookings and the deals and things like that.
Speaker 1:No. No. It's a fantastic industry. Fantastic. It's just it's just a very interesting industry.
Speaker 1:We should do a market map.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Maybe we should collab with, with with our girl, Justine. Well, let's move on to our next big funding announcement. FAL has raised 49,000,000 series b. I thought they were talking about the Belgian made battle rifle, the FAL, but this is a generative media platform for developers. I was excited.
Speaker 1:49,000,000, that gets you a lot of FALs, enough to arm a small militia, potentially take over Silicon Valley, but these guys are taking over Silicon Valley using AI. We love to see it. The nonviolent way. Let's go to Todd Jackson. He says, rocketship is an overused term, but it's hard to come up with another way to describe FAL's trajectory.
Speaker 1:Going from 1,000,000 to 40,000,000 in ARR in one year is more vertical line than hockey stick. Their crazy focus on performance and reliability have meant that they've built what developers and enterprises actually need to deploy AI driven media creation at scale, handling over 100,000,000 inference requests daily with 99.99% uptime. That's why companies like Quora, Canva, and Amazon Ads rely on their platform for image generation and why the founders are perfectly positioned for the next wave of generative video. Their recent AI video starter kit, an open source in browser editor for AI video, link below, was the first of many cool launches they have up their sleeve this year. First round had the chance to back this team at seed and is the team that saw where the puck is going and furiously built ahead of the curve.
Speaker 1:This time next year, even these numbers will look small. So Yep. Little bit of the Glazinator 3,000 coming out for the Port Co, but we love to see it.
Speaker 2:Hey. I mean, you can fair fair game to do a little to to pull out the glazinator if you if you're not
Speaker 1:When when you seated a company and they raise a $50,000,000 series b, pull out the glazinator. Let's go.
Speaker 2:I, you know, I once put I had my first portfolio company go to 0 to a hundred million of annualized revenue, And I that I that I've got in, like, sub 20, post.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And I posted I posted that, I didn't say say the portfolio company name, but I posted that it was more meaningful to me than, like, holding my child for the first time. Like, obviously, just, like, baiting people and, like, nobody got the joke. Like, everybody was just like, congrats, man. Like, that's amazing. And then, like, a couple couple quote tweets.
Speaker 2:They were like, this technology brother says that like getting like, you know, a 9 figure revenue, you know, Portco is, is better than, you know, so anyways, for the record,
Speaker 1:that's great.
Speaker 2:That was a joke. But, yeah. Anyways, fantastic fantastic prog, progress. So we had a debate in in our, in our, in our, group chat with with some, former brothers of the week about, you know, what happens to these companies that go from zero to potentially a hundred plus million of ARR in in this super, super, super short period of time. You see, like, companies like Cursor, FALS on that trajectory.
Speaker 2:Oh, cool. Labs, Mercore, all its businesses. And, there's a lot of reasons that you could be short these companies. But in general, I'm very, like, very bullish. Right?
Speaker 2:It's Yeah. It's very hard to get people. It's very much easier to raise venture capital than it is to get customers to send you payments for your product. Right? And people are clearly paying for these products.
Speaker 2:They're using them. They're integrating them into their businesses. They're getting a lot of value out of them. One thing that I did think was, let me try to find, pull up that Well, while you
Speaker 1:pull that up, it just feels so, yeah, one of our buddies said the, you know, the iron law of anything that goes up quickly must come down quickly. It's very pithy. It does it does make some sense, but it all all of these revenue numbers just just really make it clear that although the valuations feel like the .com boom, although AI feels like a potentially even bigger transformative technology than the Internet, and we are in another kind of transformation bubble. There's going to be asset bubbles when we're transforming technologies and and rolling out entirely new technology. The like, like, the actual fundamentals of the business are just very, very different from the .com boom Yeah.
Speaker 1:Where it was like, oh, you put up a web page, you got a hundred thousand users, and now you're IPOing. It like, that was what was going on in the .com boom. Now it's like, well, yeah, there's some private capital at risk, and maybe you're overvalued, but you really did get a hundred million dollars in revenue. Yeah. You know, hopefully, a lot of that's sticky.
Speaker 1:Now some of it Yeah. The slosh around other products as people roll stuff out, but I don't I'm not counting on, you know, if you're with cursor, are you really gonna go to Salesforce? You know? No. It's like you're you're probably gonna be pretty happy with that product and stick around.
Speaker 2:Yeah. The the exact line, from Jeremy Gafon, who's not, you know, entirely bearish, but is, you know, interested to see how these played out because he'll be in the position to buy, you know, the companies that iron law of the universe. And Yep. So if it's, you know not that it's easy to to experience this level of growth, but, it certainly happened quickly. And so that could imply that other people will be able to achieve similar things and maybe end up being competitive, but you're totally right.
Speaker 2:In the .com era, companies were going public with, you know, single digit millions of rep dollars of revenue or or less getting valued at at billions of dollars. And this is certainly far from the case. And the other thing that's good is these are private experienced private market investors that are risking their capital and their LPs capital. And so if these companies don't grow into those valuations, it's not, you know, necessarily retail investors that are gonna be holding the back.
Speaker 1:I mean, even even during the SPAC boom, some of the some of the companies that went SPAC, had worse financials than a company like FAL here. Let's go through this company a little bit because I didn't know that much about them, but, there's a nice article here in Fortune that breaks it down. FAL stands for features and labels. You know, these guys are developers when they name their company, something like that. A machine learning term referring to input data and the yeah.
Speaker 2:It's like ADP automatic data processing.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Or IBM, International Business Machines. Great name. You know? But, like, you know, why not?
Speaker 1:And I don't know. FAL. That's cool. But there's another layer. FAL is also a Turkish term for fortune telling.
Speaker 1:The startup's cofounders tell me. It's a good Easter egg that's there. We have a lot of Turkish employees, and it's fun when they notice. The the founders are both from originally from Turkey. They first connected in the early twenty tens in San Francisco.
Speaker 1:They both worked in AI and machine learning at tech companies. One was at Amazon, the other one was at Oracle, then Coinbase, and they became longtime friends in the dead of COVID. The two were in the same bubble in Palm Springs talking about AI. They founded FAL in fall of twenty twenty one looking to provide developers with the platform and acumen to more readily use generative AI models for image and video generation. We made an early bet to position ourselves as just focusing on generative media as opposed to many others who were very excited about LLMs.
Speaker 1:We basically left the LLMs behind and specialized in image, video, and audio type models. The company has been in the midst of rapid make sure hands and feet are inside of the vehicle growth and now has 22 employees. Man, 22 employees. That's so small for how big they are. This is fantastic.
Speaker 1:Only four months after announcing its series a, the startup has reached a new milestone, a $49,000,000 series b. Notable capital led the round with Andreessen Horowitz and venture, Bessemer is in, Kindred, First Round Capital all participated with the deal. A 16 z general partner, Jennifer Lee, and Notable Capital managing partner, Glenn Solomon, will join the board. If you're new to generative AI for images and videos, the most important thing you should know is using these models can feel infinite. You can rapidly generate impossible videos and images from golden astronauts in space to penguins playing instruments.
Speaker 1:And while this sounds aesthetically cool but fundamentally abstract, what the founders are seeing is that businesses are starting to actively want to use this tech. They currently serve north of 50 enterprises, including Quora, Perplexity, and Canva. And Perplexity's CEO, who's been on the show before, he is an FAL investor. Fortune has a business partnership with Perplexity. So little one hand washes the other on this article.
Speaker 1:I like it. I like it. Yeah. Pay the bills, Fortune. Get get it done.
Speaker 1:The use case are both legion and specific. Good writing too. With some startups building applications on the platform where other companies are focusing on AI generated avatars for training and education, design, super unicorn, Canva, has been using FAL as it develops and integrates AI powered editing tools. The use cases are very broad, much broader than I think initially expected, said the investor at Notable Capital, Dan Kahana. You play with these models and it's fun.
Speaker 1:You send them to your family and you blow your grandparents' minds with it. But as you spend more and more time, you realize this totally changes photo editing, architectural design, fashion design, all sorts of creative disputes. Again, we're talking about the Centaur model, talking about the human partnering with the AI. There's a ton of ways that you can do this with generative fill. This has been baked into Photoshop, but not everyone has Photoshop in their pipeline.
Speaker 1:And oftentimes, if you're just trying to generate a bunch of ads or, you know, you're trying to give something to a user in Canva, you want something that's a little bit more, little bit more baked into your UI, a little bit more seamless, a little better for the work workflow, and and this is a tool that can be, integrated. So very interesting. I'd love to see.
Speaker 2:One of the things that one of the things that's clearly happening here is, you know, you'll oftentimes get the advice of stay small. You can move a lot faster. Right? As soon as you start bloating your organization and there's more people that need to sign off on different things, everything just slows down. Yep.
Speaker 2:And so in in in their situation and cursor situation, cursor's, I think, right now has, like, 5,000,000 of ARR per employee. Right? So it's, like, pretty, like, best in class. And so part of what's happening is all these new AI tools that every developer now has access to, they're able to use, you know, them to build faster and just hire less people, which also helps them build faster, right, by just keeping the flow down in these organizations.
Speaker 1:Totally.
Speaker 2:It's just fantastic to see. I think, Paci actually had a great piece. We should dig it up and cover it because I think it's starting to play out, which is that, we're now, he predicted that, you know, as these tools get efficient and one person can do the job of five other people, it just frees up talented people to just do more things. So before you might have had a hundred people building one company, now you can have that same hundred people building five companies, all that could be as big as the original company, right? Just due to that sort of efficiency increase.
Speaker 2:So we're just seeing more and more of these stories. Like I don't, I've never been, I've never experienced a time where we had this many new companies ripping from zero to double digit, you know, millions of dollars in ARR. And so it's it's, you know, just fantastic to see.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. And the products are clearly real. Like, obviously, there was, you know, a similar boom during the crypto boom in 2020, '20 '20 '1, but there was always a question of, like, is this really a durable problem, or are we just speculating with this? Sure.
Speaker 1:The stocks might be a little bit frothy. Who knows where the valuations land? But, you know, when I open one of these apps and I use generative AI to edit a photo, I'm getting real value out of that. And I love that, and I think that's gonna stick around for sure. Anyway, let's move on to our next fundraising announcement.
Speaker 1:Harvey has raised $300,000,000 from Sequoia in a series d. Winston Weinberg says on x, excited to announce our series d led by Sequoia with participation from Conviction, Kleiner Perkins, OpenAI, GV team Conviction, Elad Gill, and LexisNexis. LexisNexis is an interesting one because they have all the data that you'd wanna train on. Yeah. Let's go through the announcement here.
Speaker 1:Today, we are thrilled to announce our series d. In 2024, we saw four x annual recurring revenue growth and expanded from 40 customers to 235 customers in 42 countries, including the majority of the top 10 US law firms. So that means six at least, Yeah. Of the top 10. That's pretty huge, and I'm sure they're paying a pretty penny for this.
Speaker 1:We've also seen the legal and professional services industry shift faster than ever before. Lawyers are adopting technology at an unprecedented rate. Centuries old firms are experimenting with new business models, and enterprises are driving significant savings with AI enabled workflows. The pace of change will only accelerate in twenty twenty five. Very cool.
Speaker 1:Have you seen a lawyer use Harvey, or has it been revealed to you? What's your take on Harvey?
Speaker 2:I haven't yet. I one of my, neighbors and our and our our our counsel for TBPN, is at a fairly large law firm, Wilkie. And I started asking him as soon as Harvey was, like, on the map, you know, already they quickly came out the gates and raised, you know, a a few rounds back to back. They're already at their series d. I think it's a two ish year old company, maybe a little bit more.
Speaker 2:They so I started asking him, have you heard about this? Have you seen it until, like, nine months ago? Hadn't hadn't heard about it, used it, anything like that. I actually should I'm not gonna text him this moment because he's on paternity leave, but, I'm I'm sure they've they've they're already having conversations with the firm. Even, like, six months ago, there was people flooding Harvey on the timeline.
Speaker 2:Oh, I I don't know a single lawyer that even knows about it or I don't like, who's using this? Blah blah blah. Hard to fake, this. Right? Hard to have the the majority of of the 10 largest law firms in The US using your product.
Speaker 2:So they're clearly crushing it. I think that, you know, some of the best applications of generative AI are the most obvious. Right? You look at the legal industry where every small thing costs hundreds of dollars even if it's just using boilerplate contracts. And so this was just such an obvious application, but it took a ridiculously talented team, and, you know, extreme focus to actually get it to this point.
Speaker 2:And so I'm sure that will be you know, what what hasn't been obvious yet is, you know, in the generative sort of engineering coding space, there's so many heavily funded big players, everything from, you know, Cursor to Devon, which are then taking different approaches to to Windsurf and poolside and and all these different companies. We haven't seen the same thing play out in legal AI. There certainly are, you know, cool. You know, there are a number of, you know, legal AI companies, but none that seem to have the momentum and this sort of, like, you know, talent, potential power law effect of Harvey now has hundreds of millions of dollars to, you know, deploy against this problem space. And, again, I don't think this is the kind of thing that law firms are gonna want, like, you know, five or six tools.
Speaker 2:They're also not the kind of thing that engineers can sort of more organically adopt software. I don't think this is gonna be the same type of situation just because it's such a privacy, you know, oriented industry and and so heavy around regulation. So
Speaker 1:So I have a a theory that I want to run by you and kinda spitball and work through. There's always this question of, okay. Yeah. The company is doing well. They got, more than half of the top 10 US law firms, but what is so capital intensive about this?
Speaker 1:And there was a big question about, should they be raising a ton of money and training a new foundation model? Because at a certain point, OpenAI is spending $500,000,000,000 on Stargate to train GPT six or GPT fives coming soon. And can you, if you're in a narrow niche, like a vertical software niche in AI, afford to train a new model? And I don't know that they are. I don't think that they need to necessarily.
Speaker 1:I think a lot of what they're doing is post training, not pretraining, not the really expensive training runs, more of the fine tuning. But then the question becomes, well, these companies are making money. They don't have that many employees. Why are they raising so much money? And I think for these very specific, niche AI companies, it could be driven by, a need to do deals and essentially pay for access to data that's not widely available on the open Internet.
Speaker 1:And and and there's actually a case that we can go through. But what what what's your take on that theory that, hey, maybe you need a lot of money because you you need to go pay the license and get the data legally and bring it into the LLM, and that's the value add.
Speaker 2:I think that that's I'm sure a, you know, percentage of this fundraise will be used to do that. That said, I would guess that it's this that this was more oriented around. Sequoia wanted to own another 10% of Harvey and, or, you know, there's a mix of investors in the round, but Yep. It's more around, hey. We're in the position where we can do another financing.
Speaker 2:We're only willing to sell 10%, you know, and we just figure out what the number is. Okay. 300 on 3,000,000,000. Right? And so I don't think at when a company raises this much money so fast, sure, they have to have a plan for it, but, of how to deploy that capital.
Speaker 2:But oftentimes, it just comes down to, you know, we're willing to sell 10% of the company right now, and then the market sort of sets the price. Right?
Speaker 1:Interesting. Interesting. Well, I well, we should go through this Thompson Reuters versus Ross intelligence case. Ben Thompson broke this down on Stratechery yesterday, and I thought it was very interesting to understand how, data and fair use are being used in these AI training. So, Reuters, which is funny because they're the ones in the lawsuit, but they're also reporting on it.
Speaker 1:Another one hand washes the other, situation, reports. A federal judge in Delaware on Tuesday said that a former competitor of Thomson Reuters was not permitted by US copyright law to copy the information and technology companies' content to build a competitive a competing artificial intelligence based legal platform. US Circuit Judge, Stefanos Bibas, decision against defunct legal research firm Ross Intelligence marks the first US ruling on the closely watched question of fair use in AI copy copyrighted, litigation. And so, Ross Intelligence was using Thomson Reuters head notes as AI data to create a legal research tool to compete with Westlaw. It is undisputed that Ross Ross's AI is not generative, wrote the judge.
Speaker 1:And so this is a this is a pretty important distinction. Ben Thompson argues that, Ross Intelligence was building a legal research tool based on natural language processing to enable plain language search queries that would deliver relevant court decisions. This tool was a direct competitor to Westlaw, which is owned by Thomson Reuters. Here's the key aspect of the case, which does have a bearing on generative AI. The product itself did not violate Thomson Reuters copyright, rather the judge ruled that training material that Ross Intelligence used to develop its natural language search functionality did.
Speaker 1:Specifically, while Thomson Reuters refused to give Ross Intelligence a license to its head notes, which summarized a case and key number system, the numerical taxonomy it used to organize cases, Ross Intelligence did use a company called LegalEase to generate its training data, and LegalEase is alleged to have basically copied Westlaw's head notes. And so the reason why this is pertinent is that assuming this case holds up through a jury trial and any relevant appeals, it establishes the precedent that using copyrighted data for creating a product, even if that data is not in the final product itself, does lead to potential liability. This is also precisely why this case might not hold up. There's two other cases, and eventually, it's gonna go to the Supreme Court. And so, it squares the circle in generative AI cases, but not if the problem was the training data.
Speaker 1:It seems to me that the entity that violated the law is LegalEase, not Ross Intelligence, which, by the way, has long since gone out of business because of this lawsuit, which is funded by insurance. Regardless, I wouldn't read too much into this or any other case just yet. All of this is gonna need to be resolved by the Supreme Court at some point or Congress. And so this is interesting because there's been this debate over, oh, OpenAI is scraping YouTube or they're scraping you know, there's all these allegations scraping the New York Times scrape. And then there's a question about, is it transformative and what is fair use?
Speaker 1:And so, you know, if you're just if you're just a, you know, a a BuzzFeed reporter or even a podcaster like us, we read I'm reading Ben Thompson's article right now. I'm, like, stealing his content.
Speaker 2:You're generating you're generating yeah. You're generating content from it.
Speaker 1:Exactly. I'm reacting to it. And so in theory, this is this is, this is fair use. Now the question is is the output of these LLMs is usually transformative because it is new sentences. And and as long as they're not dumping direct quotes out, it should be fine.
Speaker 1:Yeah. But there's a question about, can you scrape someone's, and can you use their their their their content as as training data? And this is something that was just
Speaker 2:Such a fascinating
Speaker 1:no legal basis for it.
Speaker 2:Because, you know, you look at the historical precedent of anybody just physically walking into a library, reading books, pulling out quotes, using that material to make other things.
Speaker 1:James Cameron.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. James Cameron. And then suddenly, you know, when a computer does it, oh, woah.
Speaker 2:Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah.
Speaker 2:Can't do that. And so we we've taken the other side of this. We've said, you know, I'm sure OpenAI is listening to live stream right now. I'm sure, I'm sure they're just actively feeding this into, into their models, but we encourage it. Right?
Speaker 2:We're trying to make Yeah. The models have our extremist beliefs. And so it's actually You know, influence
Speaker 1:the show off.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's part of our strategy. But, you know, it it is interesting.
Speaker 2:You know, the other side of this is that for a long time, companies, were able to monetize their data, you know, very effectively on, like, a per user basis, you know, paywalls, enterprise contracts to access that data. I have a buddy who has, like, this fantastic media roll up company, and he charges millions of dollars for big hedge funds to get access to that data and other, you know, policy, you know, makers and things like that. And so it is this really interesting challenge of, like, what happens
Speaker 1:when's the data USA ID? Or what happened?
Speaker 2:I actually pressed I I pressed him on that Monday. I said, you know, how you doing, bud? Our hands are clean. But, the New York Times can't can't say the same thing. But,
Speaker 1:political political is the one
Speaker 2:that Yeah. So, anyway, it it's just this interesting challenge of, you know, even startups will tell you Yeah. Startups have long included a not usually that compelling aspect of their pitch, which is that we're gonna have so much data and that is gonna be valuable inherently. And and what's happening now, I think, is that you need to take the data that you have. And of course, you wanna protect it because if it's part of your monetization strategy, but it's coming down to it does seem like on a long enough time horizon, the walls on all, you know, data that's shared online are going to drop.
Speaker 2:Right? Because, and clearly
Speaker 1:Depends how easily it can be scraped because some some data I mean, if you're talking about, like, health care financial records, like, these are truly locked down. Yeah. Sure. There's hackers that break stuff open every once
Speaker 2:in a while.
Speaker 1:They get a list of passwords or Home Depot receipts or Walmart stuff. But, like, in general, there have not been massive leaks of of really super proprietary data. And certainly, once it leaks, it's on the dark web. Like, as a company, you are not just going to be like, yeah. Let's ingest that.
Speaker 1:Whereas yeah. Sure. You might write a bot that scrapes the Internet like Google does, and then there's a legal question of is that okay or not, and how can that go into pretraining?
Speaker 2:So an interesting scenario that I'm sure Harvey is in is that, know, law firms themselves generate so much data. Right? And some of that some of that ends up becoming in, you know, in, like, public, right, through, you know, cases and stuff like that.
Speaker 1:Totally.
Speaker 2:But then a lot of it is highly confidential, highly private. And if you're a client of one of the companies that Harvey works with, you don't necessarily want your internal private legal documentation to be used. I guess you could argue, oh, it doesn't affect you if they train on your stuff and allow other people to reproduce documents, you know, to solve, you know, similar legal issues. But at the same time, there's, like, a bunch of and I'm sure but but that said, I'm sure Harvey does some deals where it's like, you know, this is gonna cost you $5,000,000 a year, but, like, if you allow us to train on the the full set of your law firms, you know, fifty years of of, you know, internal communications and, you know, things like that, then we can sort of discount it or, you know, who who knows. Right?
Speaker 2:It could just be built into their fact, I don't have any inside knowledge there.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. It's, yeah, it's fascinating to follow. We'll have to dig into Harvey more, understand, how they built the business. I mean, the OpenAI startup fund is in this deal.
Speaker 1:So, obviously, they're working closely with OpenAI. At the same time, Sequoia is, I think writing big checks into XAI. And and Grok is now going to be able to leave, relatively light legal opinions. I think that that that was announced. And so, there's always a question about, like, legal aids for consumers versus, you know, an enterprise product that integrates with truly proprietary data.
Speaker 1:Harvey's clearly taken the latter strategy, but it looks like it's working out. And congrats to the team over at Harvey. Seems like you guys are crushing it. Well, let's move on to more AI news, but this time on the energy side. There's a great article in China Talk, all about, tran the transformer shortage.
Speaker 1:And we're not talking about the transformer architecture. We're talking about literal physical transformers, and the transformer shortage is choking The US supply chain. If Trump wants to build, he needs an industrial policy for transformers. It doesn't matter if you wanna build housing, AI data centers, renewable energy inst installations, EV charging stations, semiconductor fabs, or drone factories, you need transformers for all of the above. Not even the fossil fuel industry is exempt.
Speaker 1:Oil and gas drilling both require special transformers to supply power to rig machinery, compressors, refineries, and more. I was talking to, I mean, there are nuclear power companies that want to deliver nuclear power to oil and gas drillers so that they can get more power to run their tools. People don't realize that you need a lot of energy to get the oil out of the ground often. And so these transformers are really key, and I haven't heard of any companies building these. So I thought it'd be an interesting deep dive.
Speaker 1:So technologically speaking, transformers are relatively simple. They were first invented in the nineteenth century, and yet the inability to build transformers is causing US industrial policy to short circuit. In the words of the utility resource planner, AJ Pandey, the transformers shortage is bad. It's like hair on fire, biting my nails, losing sleep levels of bad. If you wait to if you if you build new multifamily housing, you could be looking at a two and a half year wait for a transformer to supply the building.
Speaker 1:And that's if the manufacturers are even accepting orders. I had no idea. The Trump administration has ambitious plans for AI infrastructure, permitting reform, and offshore drilling projects without transformers. However, The US is destined to remain a build nothing country no matter how many billions of dollars the federal government dishing dishes out. So how did it get so bad?
Speaker 1:And that is an interesting question. COVID nineteen impacted transformer supply chains, but a confluence of several demand side factors extended the shortage. First, the US grid is aging. We know this. Transformers are typically rated for forty years of service, and much of The US grid is reaching the end of its allocated life.
Speaker 1:And so just replacing and upgrading existing transformers is driving a ton of demand. Second, overall electrification is increasing nationally. Americans are using electricity instead of natural gas to cook their food, heat their homes, take hot showers, and this trend is effectively irreversible. And third, and most and perhaps most obviously, scores of new renewable energy projects and EV charging stations require transformers to come online. To come online.
Speaker 1:Newly leased offshore drilling projects will have a similar effect. And so we want to do more with transformers, and yet, the supply side is not keeping up. And so Coal. The n I a c yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Children the children
Speaker 2:we need to get children to stop playing Minecraft and start mining coal. They yearn they clearly yearn for the mines. Let's make them let's make them productive.
Speaker 1:Yeah. The answer is clearly a steampunk future with, me on an airship twirling my mustache powered by coal and and steam steam revolution. That's the end that's the end goal.
Speaker 2:For sure. Back to blimp back to blimps. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Blimps. For sure. Yeah. I saw a fantastic photo of the Hindenburg docked at the Chrysler Building. Incredible.
Speaker 1:Or maybe it was the Empire State. Like, it's so ridiculous. It just looks so cool and futuristic. But at the same time, I think it's more like a I think blimps are more like unicycles than anything else where it's like novel, but then there's so many drawbacks that it just doesn't make sense. So I think I'm anti blimp, anti train, and I just want supersonic jets and rockets, really.
Speaker 1:Anyway, the NIAC identified four structural supply side challenges in a report released in June of last year. Labor shortages. The US does not have an effective pipeline to train and retain the manufacturing talent. We've seen this in so many different industries. There's a historic industry cyclicality.
Speaker 1:There's been a strong correlation between transformer demand and the housing market. And so when the housing market took off in the early two thousands, transformer production followed. But then when the market crashed, it caused many manufacturers to exit the market. There's also a lack of standardization. It's difficult to officially scale up production without a with a custom product.
Speaker 1:And so utilities are very specific about their transformers. There's no standardization really. Every utility has its own specification. If you're a small utility, you're asking for a very, very small batch of this very bespoke thing. And there's also a material shortage.
Speaker 1:Transformers are made with grain oriented electrical steel, g o e s. Never heard that term before. Glad to know it now. But there's only one domestic manufacturer who is unable to meet demand. Contributing factors include the destruction of the Azovostal steel plant in Mariupol and sanctions against Russian steel producers, rising demand for nonoriented electrical steel, a key ingredient in EVs that comes from the same manufacturing facilities, will also increase supply tension.
Speaker 1:The net result is that domestic supply can only meet 20% of transformer demand, and transformer prices have risen 60 to 80% since 2020. Not good stuff. Should we go into physical attack? This is a great one.
Speaker 2:So Crazy. Crazy. Crazy.
Speaker 1:A 2014 analysis by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the FERC, identified 30 critical high voltage substations in the national grid and predicted that losing just nine of these substations as the result of a coordinated attack could cause a nationwide blackout lasting for weeks or even months. And so this is your call to action, become a prepper. Get a get a generator, a gas a diesel generator, get a battery pack, get a Starlink. You know, if you have a family, you should be investing in this stuff because, the power grid is sadly very, very fragile. That report is ten years old, but according to an NPR interview with Richard Moroz, former president of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, the situation today is not substantially different.
Speaker 1:Knocking out those high impact facilities is probably harder than everyone would think, but he did not say that the underlying grid infrastructure had become less centralized. What kind of security measures are in place to protect these high impact facilities? According to Politico, protections include armed security staff, bullet resistant fencing, or video monitoring. But these measures may not be enough to protect against a major blackout. In 2022 alone, there were a total of 1,600 security incidents involving The US power grid in including 60 incidents that led to outages.
Speaker 1:Notable cases include the twenty thirteen Metcalf sniper attack and the twenty twenty two attack on substations in Moore County, North Carolina. In both cases, the perpetrators were never caught. And so, basically, people just go and buy a sniper rifle or a long range assault rifle, and then they just take pot shots at the substation. And if they hit any critical piece of the in the chain, one wire, one bolt Yeah. Anything, it can knock out the entire grid.
Speaker 1:It's, like, an extremely, like, high leverage terrorist activity for a crazy person. Yeah. And they could have any sort of motives. They could be left wing, right wing. They could be international.
Speaker 2:It's like one person, a $300 rifle and potentially millions of dollars, you know, or, you know, God forbid, billions of damage. My That's
Speaker 1:when you think about the arson that happened in LA and the potential for that. Like, there are a lot of people that wanna have, like, a high leverage, terroristic impact. And, and these electrical substations are sadly, one of the most high leverage places to have something to
Speaker 2:do with them. Little anecdote. My mom was buying a condo and was in escrow, and they were waiting on a transformer to be able to power the building. And, it dragged on every single day Every every single week, they'd say like, hey. We're expecting this.
Speaker 2:Like, in the next week, just dragged on and dragged on and dragged on actually for months, and she eventually just bailed and and bought another place because she was like, I'm not just gonna keep waiting around for this, you know, this thing that who knows when it's gonna come, basically. So actively, you know, slowing down various aspects of the economy.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I wonder if I can find this Will Menitis tweet. I know he's talked about it. Trans former. Yeah.
Speaker 1:This is it. He he tells the story of Metcalfe here. We should just read through this because it's so interesting. 26 k likes. It's a banger, folks.
Speaker 1:On 04/16/2013, a team of highly skilled gunmen opened fire on the Metcalfe's power substation in San Jose, California. In just under ten minutes, they disabled 17 transformers and caused $15,000,000 in damages. This is the most important terror terror attack you've never heard of. Quick thread. The PG and E Metcalfe station provides most of Santa Clara Valley with power.
Speaker 1:Facebook, Stanford, etcetera, are all on this grid. The attackers are still unknown. They were never caught, and the motive is still unknown. This is so crazy. It sounds just like complete conspiracy theory because, of course, when you don't have an answer, you're just gonna generate theories, and who knows?
Speaker 1:And they're gonna be hard to verify. A timeline of the attack. But all this is, like, this is factual, like, facts. It's just you you no one knows how to piece all these facts together. At 12:58AM, in the middle of the night, fiber optic lines were cut not far from The US Route 101, just outside the South San Jose just just outside of South San Jose.
Speaker 1:The substation loses Internet and phone service. At 01:07AM, some customers lost service cables in its vault near the Metcalf substation were also cut. 01:31AM, a surveillance camera pointed along a chain link fence around the substation recorded a streak of light that investigators from the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office think was a signal from a waved flashlight. Like, I'm I'm ready to go. It was followed by the muzzle flash of rifles.
Speaker 1:At 01:37AM, PG and E received an alarm from motion sensors at the substation, possibly from bullets grazing the fence. At 01:41AM, Santa Clara County's sheriff department received a 9911 call about gunfire sent by an engineer at a nearby power plant that still had phone service. At 01:45AM, the first bank of transformers riddled with bullet holes and having leaked 52,000 US gallons of oil overheated, whereupon PG and E's control center about 90 miles north received an equipment failure alarm. At 01:50, another flashlight signal caught on film marked the end. More than a hundred expended seven six two by 39 millimeter cases were later found at the site.
Speaker 1:At 01:51, officers arrived and found everything quiet. Unable to bet get past the locked fence, and seeing nothing suspicious, they left. In the subsequent investigation, it became incredibly clear how professional of an operation this was. Of the 100 shell casings found, all had been wiped clean of fingerprints. There were also stacks of rocks found all over the site commonly used to gauge firing distance.
Speaker 1:So they went, they measured, they put down rocks. This rock means we're 200 meters away, 200 yards away, and so you need to adjust your, your your dope accordingly, essentially. Yeah. They knew where to attack yeah.
Speaker 2:Just to kinda get into who might potentially be the culprit, if you've ever anybody that listens to the show that that follows Josh Diamond Yes.
Speaker 1:Diamond, I knew you were gonna
Speaker 2:sell it. Notorious for saying, good morning. We are gonna win almost every day. And then, also, anytime something like this happens, he'll quote, we didn't say how many US or how many foreign sabotage teams are operating on US soil. And so he was within the the 2016 Trump, you know, White House, you know, working on national security, has a military background.
Speaker 2:And so he had actually a lot of exposure. You know, a lot of times these attacks happen, and the government figures out what happens, but they don't necessarily deliver that to, the press and the media because we the government doesn't want the citizenry to feel like they're constantly under attack or there's sort of, sort of these these missions being carried out. But it's very you know, something like this to me, screams like foreign sabotage more so than such a professional job. Who else would really have the incentive to do this other than, you know, foreign adversary that just wants to cause chaos, you know, US and test things. Right?
Speaker 2:So
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. Totally. I'm yeah. I'm I'm I'm staring at the tinfoil hat.
Speaker 1:It's just out of reach. But, I mean, just thinking about, like, if me and a bunch of guys wanted to go do something in a foreign country, could we get there on a tourist visa, overstay that visa, start acquiring weapons? There's a million weapons all over, America. You go to some gun shows, buy some stuff, figure out some back routes, buy all the gear, plan all this out. Like, this does not seem like, you know, like a moon landing level effort.
Speaker 1:This feels like Yeah. A couple guys from a pretty sharp team putting some work in, some planning, and then going and executing it with, you know, a couple months of prep, and they get a pretty crazy out outcome. There's been a lot of conspiracy theories about whether this was, you know, a a test of the system or an attack from an adversary or maybe just, political extremists who are, you know, Americans, and they and they and they wanna cause chaos for one reason or another. It's hard to say, but the important thing is that relevant yeah.
Speaker 2:It's a relevant repost from Bill Ackman who reposted within the last twenty four hours from his account that has 1,600,000 followers.
Speaker 1:Wow.
Speaker 2:If you're not a conspiracy theorist by now, you are basically the r word. And, and so Okay. But Yeah. Just clean it up. You know, remix it to be, say
Speaker 1:Yeah. If you're not a conspiracy theorist say?
Speaker 2:You're just silly. If you're not a conspiracy theorist by now, you're just silly.
Speaker 1:You're silly.
Speaker 2:That hits pretty hard too. So mix it up, Ackman.
Speaker 1:But I have long said that, conspiracy theories like, if it's a conspiracy theory and it comes true, it's just history. Like, nine eleven, the the default narrative on '9 '11, which is that bin Laden determined to attack, that was a conspiracy theory. Let's define it. Was it a conspiracy? Absolutely.
Speaker 1:It was a bunch of guys in
Speaker 2:yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1:You can't see literally conspiring to attack America. And then the second question is, was there a theory? Absolutely. Because the CIA wrote a memo theorizing that bin Laden was determined to attack. And so the the CIA basically said, hey, we are in the business of of crafting theories about conspiracies.
Speaker 1:We think we are onto a conspiracy, and then it came true. And so now it's just and now it's just true history. And so ignore the theory.
Speaker 2:Ignore the theory. Yes. But the definition of a conspiracy is a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful or the action of plotting. So anytime, anything, whenever something happens, it's usually because a small one or a small group of people plotted to do something. Now you don't know The opposite is for who it is.
Speaker 1:Is when you're when you're building in public or when you're,
Speaker 2:you know,
Speaker 1:a competition and you're on the campaign trail and you say, if elected, I'm gonna cut taxes or I'm gonna raise taxes, and then you do it. That's not a conspiracy. You did it out in the open. You said you were gonna do something.
Speaker 2:It wasn't unlawful for karma.
Speaker 1:The Tesla secret plan, that is not a conspiracy. There are conspiracies that happen all over the place, but not everything is conspiracy. But sometimes there are conspiracies that happen. And and if someone is onto it ahead of time and has a theory about it, it is technically a conspiracy theory. And so we almost need a different word to to, denote a conspiracy theory that you think is wrong versus a conspiracy theory that you think is correct.
Speaker 1:Because Yeah. Obviously, that there there are there are two paths that these things can take.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And we we obviously we we keep a tinfoil hat on the set. It's usually within me, and you're a good counterbalance to me because, you know, I'll I'll have some crazy theory and you'll just be like, oh, like, you know, seems complicated. You know, perfect. It could be a lot more simple and, you know, less nefarious than that.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I I usually just like to go back to, like, you know, is there some sort of market pressure? Does this conspiracy theory require me to suspend the idea that people are rational economic actors? Okay. That's gonna be a lot harder.
Speaker 1:But when you look at this, it's like, you know, if you're if you're a country that's competing with America and you can send a a a group of five dudes over to America and just wreak some havoc for, you know, what, a hundred k in flights and gear Yeah.
Speaker 2:There was
Speaker 1:That's gonna be a great ROI. And so that's not After the That doesn't break my world model to consider that this might be, foreign interference.
Speaker 2:A lot of the, moms and wellness girlies in LA had heard that Iran had posted, like, a day before the fires, which they always post. They always post.
Speaker 1:They always post.
Speaker 2:Their their their posters over there. And, they had posted, you know, in the coming days, United States will experience a, you know, catastrophe the world will experience a catastrophe the likes of which it has never seen. And then as it became obvious that there was arson happening and these fires didn't all start organically, then the the conspiracy theory windmill started turning. But then since then, we've established that, you know, it was arson, but we still don't really know what happened, who did it, what the motive was. Was it mental illness?
Speaker 2:Was it homeless people? Was it, you know, you know They just got away with it. I don't know
Speaker 1:if we'll ever know. Like, it it this is twelve years ago at this point, and there's no evidence. There's nothing to go off of. There's no threads to pull. It's like Yeah.
Speaker 1:You know, they've already they got the shell casings. There were no fingerprints. What are you gonna do? Anyway, there are other problems with the transformer shortage. Mainly, one is that a lot of these transformers come from China, $54,000,000,000 to exactly in, 2022.
Speaker 1:In 2023, China was The USA's Third largest supplier of transformer components by value, selling American customers 375,000,000 worth of parts electrical parts of electrical transformers, static converters. Only Mexico and Canada outranked China by value. Chinese made components represent 15% of America's imports in this category. This might not sound like much until you remember that this calculation is by value. Since the exchange rate is are is kept artificially low, China likely provides a disproportionate volume of these components compared to other trade partners.
Speaker 1:The picture gets worse when you consider imports of whole completed transformers. The OEC reports that China was The USA's number one supplier of transformers and transformer components in 2022, exporting 5,470,000,000.00 worth of product to The USA. And so, however, the for the large power transformers that are most critical, China is the sixth largest exporter. So it's not all bad news, but it is very rough. And you could see that this could become a, one of the poker chips on the bargaining table in the tariffs.
Speaker 1:We're restricting chips, but chips aren't the only thing we need to build these AI data centers. If we want dominance in artificial intelligence, we need transformers too. And if China cuts us off, that's gonna be that that's gonna be a significant setback. So lots of, you know, we never talk about politics, but geopolitics always finds a way in with these stories. So let's let's wrap up the transformer discussion, and and see how they close this out.
Speaker 1:By supplementing the 2020, transformer executive order with real industrial policy, the Trump administration has a huge opportunity to jump start the construction of housing, factories, and energy infrastructure in The United States. I love the sound of that. I think that should be bipartisan. We all want to build more stuff. To close, we'll leave you with a full list of policy recommendations from the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, the NIAC.
Speaker 1:They recommend that the federal government craft policies and designate funding targeting at increasing domestic capacity. They wanna use the CHIPS Act as a model. They recommend convening all parties who drive demand to achieve greater accuracy in transformer demand forecasting. So everyone who's buying transformers, let's get them all in a room, and let's say, how many transformers do you actually want? How many do you need?
Speaker 1:Stargate, like, how many how many transformers do you actually need? Crusoe, let's let let let's get let's get you in here and see so that we have an accurate plan of what we need to build domestically, how important are the tariffs, etcetera. They recommend encouraging long term contracts and customer commitments. They recommend establishing strategic reserve of transformers with the US government as the buyer of last resort. And they recommend that the government promote collaboration between design engineers from utilities and, domestic manufacturers with the goal of standardizing transformer design and reducing complexity.
Speaker 1:And so there's a couple others here, but, basically, you need to grow the qualified, grow the pipeline of qualified workers in the transformer manufacturing industry and also ensure sufficient supply of electrical steel by coordinating incentives. So a lot of work to do on industrial policy there, but, hopefully, green shoots ahead. What you got?
Speaker 2:I got a a good transition to some actually breaking news from the reindustrialized summit.
Speaker 1:Oh, let's do it.
Speaker 2:Aaron Slodov and Austin Bishop actually just sent us this while we were live. They just announced reindustrialized two point o is returning to Detroit. So if you don't know, reindustrialize is a, basically conference to get all the different policymakers, investors, and, you know, founders together in a single room to figure out how we're gonna reindustrialize The United States. Right? This This is one of the top sort of national security issues of our time, and it's gonna take, my hotel's calling me to kick me out of the room.
Speaker 2:Hopefully, it's not too loud. But, anyways, really exciting event. They did it last year. It was a huge success. They have people like, Dan Gilbert who was you know, started Rocket Mortgage and owns some caps and is part of StockX.
Speaker 2:And he's gonna be hosting it, so they're gonna, you know, pull out all the stops. It's gonna be an amazing event. There was a lot of good stories that came out of it last year. I was having, my second child literally the same week that it was happening last year.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I think you were go. So we
Speaker 2:both couldn't go, but we'll have to go there, this year.
Speaker 1:But one of the guys who's working on it, Mike Slay, I were I went to his previous conference, the Defense Tech Ventures Summit in DC. That was fantastic. Really well executed. I gave a talk on stage. The mics work great.
Speaker 1:There were tons of cameras. All my slides were up. They look great. It was a lot of fun and a really great community and really top founders went. And so highly recommend checking out industrialized, signing up, getting on the list, massive demand, and I'm sure it'll be a, a huge, huge event.
Speaker 1:Hopefully, we can get out there, but if not, I'm sure we'll be live streaming it and, reacting to the show as it goes on. I think that'd be really cool to do. Anything else we should cover on the breaking news, or should we move over to Dara Khosrosharhi over at Uber? Let's do it. And so, Dara did an interview with Ben Thompson over at Stratechery, and and I thought it was interesting because I wanted to talk about, self driving cars, but he has a very interesting background.
Speaker 1:Dara's family left Iran after the nineteen seventy eight Iranian revolution. And And so did and to be
Speaker 2:clear, so did Dara from Delphi's family did the same thing. Really? Yeah. Yeah. So a lot of Dara's just America and just dominate.
Speaker 1:And so you were mentioning how Iran was kind of posturing that they may have started the fires in LA and that they're, you know, kind of a near peer adversary at this point to The United States, certainly not an ally. And it's interesting because, the the people like, if if a family left, what does that say if if a family left Iran in 1978, like, what does that say about their politics? Well, it actually means that they're pro business, capitalist, pro democracy, and those are the people that got kicked out in favor of an authoritarian regime. And so, I'm a huge fan of all the Iranians who have made it over here. And, you know, if if we ever do need a new leader in Iran, Dara Khosrowshahi, I think, would be the one to take it over.
Speaker 2:He's a true manager. Or our friend, after Dara, you know Yeah. You know, LBO's Google and and merges it with with Delphi.
Speaker 1:Delphi.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Like a generational run, then go back and run Iran. That's that's one of the things is is, same thing with, you know, Russia and China and Iran. The our our our adversaries, the actual people in these countries, we have so much in common with. We we all want generally the same things.
Speaker 2:We wanna have, you know, families and be, you know, a great education and great economies. We all want the same thing. And then it's our regimes that are just like, yeah. We are mortal enemies. Like Yep.
Speaker 2:Totally. And so yeah. You know, Dara, our Dara has told us, told me stories about his family coming over here with
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Not literally nothing. Like, basically a plane ticket and then work going, you know, going from being, you know, successful business people in Iran, coming to America with nothing, running it back up, you know, becoming wildly successful here.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:And, just goes to show the ingenuity and creativity and drive of of that people.
Speaker 1:Yeah. It it's such an interesting, kind of, like, AB test on, you know, is there some sort of raw CEO skill or raw business leader skill? And clearly, that's the case with Dara. His family ran a very big company in Iran, and they thought that the children were going to join the family company when the time was right. And then they had the slight interruption of the revolution that caused them to free flee Iran.
Speaker 1:They were lucky to have an uncle that lived in The United States with his wife, and they took us into their homes, and they re rebuilt their lives. And so we used to go to France in the summer. So at the time, no one really knew the changes of foot in Iran. So we thought we would just leave, go to France for a while while things cooled down, calmed down, so to speak, and they never did calm down. And so he goes to The United States and completely starts from scratch with basically nothing.
Speaker 1:They were lucky to come to The States and rebuild their lives. And so he had an average suburban childhood, studied engineering in college and quickly, and quickly through that all the way to the start of a career in New York in finance. So he was like an investment banker at Allen and Company. Then he meets Barry Diller, who was a client at the investment bank, and he worked for Barry Diller on a couple of investment banking deals. And he swears to himself, Dara Khosrowshari says, if I ever have the chance to work with that guy, I will.
Speaker 1:And he gave me the chance to work for him, and I went to become his deal guy, so to speak. And so he's a deal guy. We love deal guys on the show. And so he moves up in his career with Barry. He goes over to, IAC travel, which then, goes into its own entity, Expedia.
Speaker 1:He becomes a public company CEO. It was a trial by fire, and he the early years were pretty rough. But after a while, I got the rhythm of it. Barry was the chairman and controlling shareholder, and we built that company in partnership for many, many years, and it was a really good run for me. And so I thought that was interesting.
Speaker 1:He also talks about how he became CEO of Uber a little bit more. We have some details on this just from the reporting at the time, but I thought it was good to revisit. Ben Thompson says, one big story is that as I understand it, there was a tense boardroom fight to even select you. And DK says, yes. Travis Kalanick supported you even though you're like, you're not going to be part of this company.
Speaker 1:He was he just trying to get back at Benchmark, or did you sit down and talk to him and sell him on your vision? And so there's this question. Obviously, Travis was in a rough scenario. He didn't really want to leave. Why is he backing the new CEO?
Speaker 1:You would think that there'd be crazy tension there. But, DK Dara says, I still to this day don't exactly know what went down at the board. I believe that there were two other candidates. I think it was Meg Whitman and Jeffrey Immelt, at least based on the news. And I think I was the third candidate that was the least objectionable to both sides.
Speaker 1:And since one side couldn't win over the other, they kinda went with me. Go go figure as far as decision making. But it certainly worked out for me. And I think, hopefully, it'll work out for the company as well. And so he has experience.
Speaker 1:He actually took over Expedia from a founder. So he was a Wall Street guy, then he was a CEO guy, and now he's sort of a manager. And, and I think I think that was interesting. He says, Expedia taught him to be an operator. I went through a period where I was CEO of the holding company, but also running Expedia.com, and that taught me operations and my background on Wall Street.
Speaker 1:That taught me a lot about capital allocation. So I think the training really prepared me to come in onto Uber and be the on the ground technical operator that the company needed, but also understand governance, understand capital allocation, etcetera. And so I have a huge amount of respect for Travis and the founding team because it wasn't just him who built the company, and they had to take a very aggressive stance as it related to regulations, the taxi unions, etcetera. They had to bust through an enormous amount of resistance. I do think at some point the company got so big and powerful, but it was still an undertaking.
Speaker 1:Call it upstart tactics, and they weren't able to make that adjustment, which is, hey, we're no longer in upstart. We now have millions of drivers. It comes with a responsibility. We have to have different kinds of discussions with regulators. And I think I brought that maturity in hindsight.
Speaker 1:So I thought that was interesting. And I wanna get to the
Speaker 2:Yeah. And the big the big question always with Uber is what how big would Uber be with Travis
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Still running the company. And there were some dark years where Dara had this extreme pressure on him. A lot of people didn't believe that he could sort of fill Travis's shoes, and there will probably forever be a debate still of how big would Uber be with with with TK running it. I joked before that that TK would have loved the post DEI era. He he certainly
Speaker 1:He's starting to rear his head. He did the all in podcast. He's done little stuff here and there. He was spot spotted in DC during the inauguration.
Speaker 2:He's probably people maybe he'll do a people magazine interview. You know?
Speaker 1:We can hope. But the reason I wanted to talk about this was because I have been kicking around in my head, is Uber a winner or loser in the AI era? And I and I haven't fully come to a conclusion. I wanted to hear what Dara had to say and hear him kinda go back and forth on it. So we'll go to, their decision to exit self driving cars and when they, and where they go from there.
Speaker 1:So, Ben Thompson says, you're doing partnerships with different autonomous driving companies in different cities. Why don't you give me your high level pitch on how you see this market? Then there's a bunch of specifics that I wanna drill down into. So DK says, yeah. Definitely.
Speaker 1:Listen. I don't think it's an if, it's a when. And the AV is a huge opportunity for the entire marketplace. These robot drivers are gonna be safer. I think they have the opportunity at scale, and it'll take a while to get to scale to reduce the price per ride and increase the TAM of the marketplace, trillion plus dollars.
Speaker 1:We think it's an enormous, enormous long term opportunity. Now a couple things have to happen before that opportunity actually turns into, into real financial opportunity. And so, he talks about developing the advanced technology groups with ATG, which was Uber's self driving group. Is it the 2025 era in San Francisco? Well, it could be.
Speaker 1:It could be. Right? But I do think the market has changed, and I certainly hope it has. First, you need a consistently superhuman safety record. It's not good enough for a robot driver to be better than a human driver.
Speaker 1:It's got to be multiple times better than the human driver. I think the capacity for society to accept human failure is much more than machine failure. I completely agree with that. There was a fatality in Phoenix. Did that change Uber's mind as far as getting out of the autonomous vehicle market, or were you sort of already on that way and that sealed the deal?
Speaker 1:I think we were leading that way. It certainly was a very, very important factor in our determination, but there were a couple other issues that were more paramount. One was they were in the middle of COVID, so all of a sudden capital was much more dear. We went from losing 2,000,000,000 a year to losing 4,000,000,000 a year, which is pretty scary. My job is to make sure the company survives, and this was a significant amount of money burning part of the operation.
Speaker 1:The other issue, that was a big one was that even though we were developing ATG to some extent separately, we treated them as arms length. We did have the marketplace separate from ATG, and the other players with whom we wanted to partner, like Waymo, didn't believe us. So they couldn't do a deal with Waymo as long as ATG was there because they were like, hey. At some point, you're just gonna swap Waymo out with ATG. And so they wanna be asset light.
Speaker 1:Hardware was not Uber's superpower. At some point, companies have to know their superpower. There are very few companies in the world who are great at hardware and software. Tesla, Apple are probably the two of the leads. It's very difficult to pull off.
Speaker 1:The accident, capital, how the business was shaping, you either had to make a bet on a vertical or platform. We wanted to make a bet on platform, and then just superpower were the four reasons why we didn't why we decided to get out of it. And Ben compared it to Netflix, so on autonomous, cars, there's a question here. Where does he say? How does that differ around the world?
Speaker 1:US federalism. So there's a question about, you're obviously the ones that have variable supply. Speaking of the network possibilities, before I'm on board with that, I should have been a devil's better devil's advocate here, but let's grant you this. You are the aggregator sitting at the top of the stack. I'm very curious to think through what do those layers, some of which you just listed, look like.
Speaker 1:So let's take a look at the actual cars. Is the software stack and the hardware made by the same company or a different company? How do you see that playing out? And Dara says, accepting Tesla, it will probably be different. So if I look at the stack, it actually kind of looks like the hotel business.
Speaker 1:I'll expand on that in a second. But let's look at hotels for a second. Right. You've got the brands and the owners. Well, you've got the demand layer, which can be Expedia.
Speaker 1:It can be Booking.com. It could be Marriott. Then you have the brands themselves, whether it's Marriott or an independent, and then you have the operator. The operator, these are the teams, management teams. Sometimes Marriott is an operator of a hotel.
Speaker 1:Sometimes there's actually local management companies as well. That's an operator. Then there's the asset owners. These are REITs, real real estate investment trusts. Marriott doesn't own almost any hotels whatsoever.
Speaker 1:These financial partners own the hotels, and then you obviously have the financier. And so, he thinks that's gonna happen in our in in autonomous vehicles. You have the network layer. That's Uber. That's Lyft.
Speaker 1:It could be Bolt. It could be Waymo too. They have the wherewithal of also going direct. Then you have the driver. To me, that's kind of like the brand, which is the Marriott driver or the Waymo driver.
Speaker 1:Then you have the operator, the management company. This could be us or Move.io, which is a partner of ours. Actually 15% of our inventory today come from fleet operators that are on the ground in these cities. So we think, we can move them over to managing AVs very easily. Ultimately, we think of OEM manufacturers.
Speaker 1:Most OEM manufacturers are gonna have different software providers providing AV, sometimes on an exclusive basis, sometimes a non exclusive basis. A GM, Tesla are going to develop in house, but many of the other players are gonna license it. And so he's talking about this this fragmentation, and he's applying the the Expedia lens. And, it's just interesting to me because we've seen this massive AI boom, and my question has always been, you know, we keep hearing, oh, GPT five is gonna be superhuman or ASI is right around the corner. And shouldn't those models be able to drive if they're superhuman?
Speaker 1:Like, we keep hearing, like, they're Yeah. They're gonna be, like, better than any PhD, and it's like, well, most PhDs can drive a car. And so, that should be part of the eval, I would think, would be, yeah. It can also it can write papers, but the same model should be multimodal multimodal enough to drive a car. And so there's a question of, like, who wins that, and then how much staying power is there in this aggregation layer?
Speaker 1:Certainly, Uber has a lot of people that have installed the app. They rely on it. There's a whole system, payments, ratings, all this different stuff. But is is Uber vulnerable, or are they actually stronger than ever? What do you
Speaker 2:think? We we talked about this before. I it it seemed like, you know, here hearing this interview is, like, completely changed my opinion on so it's smart for Dara to go and and talk with somebody like Ben Thompson because it'll actually be a very intellectual conversation more so than a journalist that's just trying to get a a headline or or Yep. You know, potentially dunk. So I think that, his point of view of con comparing it to the hotel travel industry, which he obviously has a ton of experience at from his time at Expedia, that starts to make sense.
Speaker 2:I always had this lens on Uber as, okay, Waymo's is dominant force. They're experiencing you know, they have, the technological lead. They have the actual traction lead. People love the product. They have their own app for bookings.
Speaker 2:And so, you know, we had talked about this on the show before. What happens to Uber? Are they a cable company that just has a lot of existing, you know, consumer demand and, you know, comfort and usage, and they just sort of over time, like, people just still prefer human drivers for certain things. And, you know, maybe they just sort of end up taking a huge discount on their on their multiple because, hey. This business is gonna be dead in, you know, thirty years completely, and it's not really gonna be growing.
Speaker 2:Maybe you grow earnings, but not revenue. You know? Who who who knows? But now seeing this, I can imagine a scenario where there's, you know, different fleets and operators and technology providers, and Uber maintains that sort of, you know, routing demand from consumers to to these fleets and and and sort of being that marketplace layer. So I can totally see a world where where they thrive around this new trend.
Speaker 2:Right? They're stripping out potentially. There's a bunch of costs being, you know, stripped out when I ride you know, I'm about to get an Uber over to the PMF or die, cage, and it's gonna cost me, like, $60. The majority of that is gonna go towards the driver who Yeah. Just pulling up.
Speaker 2:I open the door. I get in, you know, say a few words, and he drops me off in ten minutes. Right?
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:I can see Uber really benefiting overall, and I think this is the right narrative for them to take when they don't have the sort of internal technological lead or or even on the ground traction that Awaymo does.
Speaker 1:Yep. I do I do wonder if, maybe Uber is particularly well positioned for this, like, slower transition towards AV fleet rollouts. Because even if the next training run of the AV AI system is just flawless and superhuman in every way, it's still gonna take a long time to just build that many Waymos, like Jaguars going out of business. Like, where are they getting these cars from? They need to make so many of them.
Speaker 1:And then even once they do that, it's hard to maintain that fleet that can flex up or down for, hey. It's New Year's midnight. Everyone wants to be in an Uber, or it's Monday morning and everyone's commuting. Are people commuting in in Waymos now or Ubers? Because we're in this, like, post car ownership society that's possible.
Speaker 1:And Yeah. Uber has this ability to with the, with the demand based pricing, the surge based pricing, they can say, hey. It's New Year's Eve. Surge pricing is gonna be crazy. $200 to get to to just hop in your car and go pick up someone.
Speaker 1:Even if there's a lot of AVs driving around Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1:100% of the AVs could be in use, and then you're gonna want human flex up to actually Yeah. Meet the full demand. And these are gonna be people that just commute, and they're just gonna say, hey. I I I wanna make some extra money, and the prices are so good. I'll jump into the market right now and have a little bit more flexibility there.
Speaker 1:So I I could imagine that, that there won't just be, oh, yeah. One month, like, all the cars are self driving immediately just because of how long it takes to build out infrastructure.
Speaker 2:The counterpoint is that Waymo is now venture backed. They did around. They were they raised from you know, Google is majority owner, but they did a venture round. And so that tells me, one, I was surprised that Google didn't just try to own the entire company. But Yeah.
Speaker 2:That tells me that their ambitions are to be the next Uber, so they may play ball with Uber at some point. Maybe there's partnerships that they can do, but they're still competing for the same pie. John, I'm gonna get kicked out of my hotel room.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:And, so we got up
Speaker 1:the show then.
Speaker 2:Well, I was gonna say if you wanna run through a bit of timeline to to give the people what what they want, you're welcome to, or we can just pick it up. Fortunately, I'm going to the airport this afternoon. I'm flying home. We're gonna be back in the studio.
Speaker 1:Back in the studio. Hey.
Speaker 2:Cannot wait.
Speaker 1:I I I think that's a good place to to to to stop it. We're done with the Dara story. Tomorrow, we'll take you through Elizabeth Holmes prison interview. We'll take you through a ton of timeline. We're gonna have, you know, a million posts built up.
Speaker 1:We got a whole stack here, folks. So, set your alarm clocks for sometime between 8AM and ten because we're not really on a full schedule yet, but we appreciate you dealing with all the kinks of live streaming. We're still figuring this out. I think we've had a fantastic couple weeks with it, and we're really enjoying it. We appreciate you listening to the show wherever you listen.
Speaker 1:So don't forget to leave us five stars on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leave an ad in your review. Send us DMs. Tag us in posts you want us to react to. We will get it on the show.
Speaker 1:And next week, we'll have some updates on PMF or Die.
Speaker 2:And I got a quick line before they, you know, put me in cuffs and walk me out. But, sign up for Ramp, buy you know, move your portfolio over to public, get an Eight Sleep, run an out of home campaign with AdQuick, and get a bezel watch, and then take it to your wander. I think that's
Speaker 1:great. That's just a simple recipe for a good Thursday.
Speaker 2:There you go. All in every
Speaker 1:noon on the East Coast. It's still 10AM on the West Coast. You got plenty of time to get all that done today.
Speaker 2:So Go do it. Thank you, brothers. We will see you tomorrow.
Speaker 1:We'll see you tomorrow.
Speaker 2:Talk soon.
Speaker 1:Talk soon. Bye.