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.
It's been three years since ChatGPT launched. I wanted to reflect a little bit. Everything changed or maybe nothing changed or maybe some amount of change in between everything and nothing. You're more on the nothing changed camp. Sort of agree with you.
Speaker 1:I was sort of reflecting on, like, okay. Thanksgiving's happened. It was Thanksgiving over the weekend. You know, how different is my world? Like, there's not a humanoid robot that's cooking for me.
Speaker 1:And, also, I even if we had a humanoid robot, I think that would I think Thanksgiving would be the day we let the robot sit in the closet because Let him cook. We enjoy no. No. Let us cook. We enjoy cooking.
Speaker 2:Let us cook.
Speaker 1:Thanksgiving is like the track day of cooking. Like, even if you have the robot that does it, you still wanna do it on Thanksgiving. You don't wanna cook on a random Tuesday. King, I was reflecting more on the agentic commerce thing. It feels like ChatGPT and OpenAI, they really are pushing to make revenue from agentic commerce, like, in this holiday season.
Speaker 1:Incredible speed of execution. Like, clearly, it's a big opportunity if you can figure out how to, you know, run ads, commerce, convert, take a cut of that, that's big. The actual product in Chateappity is pretty good, but you can see that the walled gardens are already going up. So one place that I like to go to for reviews of products, specifically around the holidays, is the Wirecutter. Now the wire cutter, their whole twist was they wouldn't rate each product.
Speaker 1:What they would do is they would pick a category, and then they would just tell you what their best product was in that category, sort of like a cluster mix of vacuums. So they would give you the platinum tier vacuum and then a budget pick. They were acquired by The New York Times. The New York Times is currently in a lawsuit with OpenAI. And so if you go to ChatGPT and say, hey
Speaker 2:And I think they're about to be in a lawsuit with David Sachs.
Speaker 1:Maybe. But if you go so I went to ChatGPT, and I was like, hey, Okay, pull a deep research report. Just pull everything from the wire cutter and and tell me every category and every product that's top ranked. Wire cutter. But it couldn't do it.
Speaker 1:It couldn't do it. It said, hey. We don't we can't touch the wire cutter. Like, we're it's off limits. Mhmm.
Speaker 1:You gotta head over there yourself. Pop open a Chrome tab, brother. If you wanna head over there, like, that's on you. The one thing that did really change on Thanksgiving was the discourse. Like, the AI narrative has fully arrived to just family and friends.
Speaker 2:You mean family in in the in the home?
Speaker 1:Yes, yes. In people that don't work in technology, that don't their job is
Speaker 2:not tied their favorite trough.
Speaker 1:Not that. More talking about, is it a bubble? Where do you think all this stuff goes? The stuff that we've been talking Are
Speaker 2:about sure you're not living in a bubble? You think the average family in America is
Speaker 1:stuck I in the AI saw multiple newsletters where the whole conceit of the newsletter going into the holidays was how to talk to your family about the AI bubble and how to talk to your family about AI generally. And I think it's real because if you've been watching your four zero one over the last year, you've seen a massive spike and then a recent selloff. And if you've turned on any news or opened up any newspaper, you've been hearing about $1,000,000,000,000 And you're like, what? A trillion dollars? That ChatGPT app?
Speaker 1:They need a trillion dollars to make that thing work. Chat. Right? Chat? I wanted to reflect on, like, what has actually changed over the last three years and specifically in the Mag seven.
Speaker 1:The Mag seven has been on absolute tear. Just over the last three years, the value as a whole has basically tripled. It was, a little under $8,000,000,000,000. Now it's over $21,000,000,000,000. That's a lot of value created in the last three years.
Speaker 1:NVIDIA was second to last in the max in the mag seven when ChatGPT launched. It was worth just $420,000,000,000, something wrong there. Today, the stock is up over 10 x, basically. It's $4,360,000,000,000.
Speaker 2:And up today. And up today. Despite all the chaos
Speaker 1:Dylan in Patel was trying so hard to bring that stock down, but he couldn't do it. I do think that the the Nvidia, the 10x that's happened, has really created some crazy zealots and just an entire industrial complex because there are so many people who heard AI. They tried the ChatGPT thing, and they were like, This is big. How do I get in on this? I can't buy OpenAI.
Speaker 1:OpenAI is running away with it. Oh, they need NVIDIA chips. That's the logical next step. They went into NVIDIA, and they got a 10x. And they could have gotten a 10x on, like, a million dollars.
Speaker 1:$10,000,000.
Speaker 2:Sikhi Chen from Runway was saying that back, I think it was twenty twenty, twenty twenty one, he he said he put an uncomfortable amount of his net worth Yeah. Into NVIDIA.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:And obviously Yeah.
Speaker 1:And in in in near Saiyan, same same story. Right?
Speaker 2:Still underappreciated. Near? Yeah. The Nvidia ten year fund. All it does is buy Nvidia.
Speaker 2:You Yeah. Just by investing in it, you can't possibly sell. God's chosen company. Yes. That's what the, I think, title of the fund was.
Speaker 1:Oh, really? Yeah. Yeah. That's hilarious. Previously, the world's largest company in November 2022 was Apple.
Speaker 1:And at the time, they had a sizable lead over Microsoft, Amazon, and Google. Now that gap has closed a bit as the hyperscalers have grown more over the last three years on the back of the AI boom. And it's interesting. I mean, you can sort the MAG seven by, by market cap. And today, you get the following ranking: Tesla, then Meta, then Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple, and then NVIDIA at the top.
Speaker 1:And the big question, I think, that's on everyone's mind and kind of underpins the horse race that we cover every day on this show is what would that ranking look like in the next three years? Is NVIDIA really a monopoly? Is it is it impervious to attacks from the from, you know, different suppliers?
Speaker 2:What does Broadcom have to do to get into the Mag seven?
Speaker 1:There's also just like a bit of branding. Like, some of the companies that made it into the Mag seven were I feel like the Mag seven leaned understandable, like not that deep in the supply chain. Even NVIDIA was the deepest. NVIDIA had the least of a consumer brand, but still, a lot of people use the gaming graphics cards. Broadcom is really tricky because there's no consumer angle whatsoever.
Speaker 1:Consumers can buy Tesla. They can use Meta products. They can buy on Amazon, have a Microsoft operating system. They can use Google. They can have an iPhone.
Speaker 1:And they can have an NVIDIA gaming
Speaker 2:graphics The top right now. Tesla's sitting at 10. TSMC at nine. Eight is Saudi Aramco. Seven, Meta.
Speaker 2:And then six is
Speaker 1:I I also think you have to be an American company to be in this, like, MAG seven or whatever the hot ranking is, like FAANG. FAANG did not include never included oil companies, never included international companies. Because if you go there, then you could be like, oh, well, let's include, like, the Chinese tobacco company that's worth $1,000,000,000,000 or something like that. Like, there are some crazy there are some crazy, like, foreign owned companies that are, if they were independent, might be worth $1,000,000,000,000 because they just have so much of True monopoly. Assets.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Exactly. But it doesn't really count because it's just sitting there out in the out in the ether. Gemini app downloads are catching up to ChatGPT, and Gemini users now spend more time in the app than ChatGPT users. People are going back and forth on can Gemini catch up?
Speaker 1:The model, clearly very good. The big bombshell in the semianalysis piece over the weekend, this idea that, OpenAI has not done a proper pre train since 04/2000, and the 4.5 pre train kind of got mothballed. There was this question about, is pre training dead? Seems like the Google folks said, no, it's not. And then they went and did a pre train, Gemini three outperformed.
Speaker 1:Anthropic also pre
Speaker 2:trained. I mean, yeah.
Speaker 1:Pre Yeah. Trained pilled?
Speaker 2:I mean, we asked Chilton about this.
Speaker 1:And he
Speaker 2:said, oh, yeah. We're still bullish on scaling.
Speaker 1:I I I feel like there's still there's still juice in the lemon of pre training, but it's not scale. Like, we only have one Internet. Ilya was correct about that. I I think the thing that no one is debating is the fact that the Gemini three as a model with Nano Banana Pro, with v o three is just like the actual foundational intelligence is plenty good to be dominant in the consumer AI category. The question is, can you actually get people to install the app, use it?
Speaker 1:Can they enjoy it? Do they not churn and go back to Chechiuti? It's a really it's a sprint to actually create an app that is as sticky as ChatGPT because ChatGPT, the app, is fantastic and very, very well designed. I would much more look at like what are the structural advantages that we know exist. And I mean, with Gemini, one of them is to that point about the wire cutter, you know where the wire cutter shows up?
Speaker 1:Google search results. You know what company has one bot for scraping everything? Google. So the Google bot is, identifies as one entity. So you can either say, I'm allowing Google or not.
Speaker 1:And it's a tall order to be like, yeah, don't want to be in Google results.
Speaker 2:A funny Gemini integration that I've used that you land in a Hangout, and you just say, who is this person?
Speaker 1:Is this real? You could actually do that?
Speaker 2:It is. It pulls up a sidebar. You can just ask, like, who am I meeting with right now? And it'll give you like a
Speaker 1:It's clearly. Who am I meeting with? What should I say to What
Speaker 2:should I ask them?
Speaker 1:What is my name? What are what what do they wanna know about me? What what what should I tell them about me? David Sacks is going to war with the New York Times. He says inside the NYT's hoax factory he calls it hoax factory because The New York Times posted a a piece about David Sacks saying that, the the headline was Silicon Valley's man in the White House is benefiting himself and his friends.
Speaker 1:He says five months ago, the five New York Times reporters were dispatched to create a story about my supposed conflicts of interest working as the White House AI and crypto czar. Through a series of fact checks, they revealed their accusations, which we debunked in detail. Not surprisingly, the published article included only bits and pieces of our responses. Their accusations ranged from a fabricated dinner with a leading tech CEO to nonexistent promises of access to the president to baseless claims of influencing defense contracts. Every time we would prove an accusation false, NYT pivoted to the next allegation.
Speaker 1:This is why the story has dragged on for five months. Today, they evidently just threw up their hands and published this nothingburger. Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that they strung together a bunch of anecdotes that don't support the headline. And, of course, that was the whole point. Well, people have been, supportive of this broadly in tech.
Speaker 1:Let's go let's go through some of the reaction. Sam Altman says David Sachs really understands AI and cares about The US leading in innovation. I'm grateful we have him.
Speaker 2:Here's my takeaway. Yeah. If you believe that AI and crypto are industries that we should support in The United States, then you want to have a czar focused on those things that generally feels positively about those things. I think that there's actually a debate on both fronts, right? Like there's people on the left that think AI and crypto are just default bad.
Speaker 2:They want less of them. And there's people on the right that believe that, too. I think that ultimately, there's arguments for why The US should bleed in stablecoins, which is part of why the Genius Act is important. And a lot of the AI action plan, there's going to be debates on individual points in that. But in general, I think creating an environment in The US where we can continue to lead in AI is important.
Speaker 2:I didn't see any smoking gun in any of this stuff. There were some allegations around the
Speaker 1:all I don't think they smoke very much at all. I think it's mostly tequila drinking.
Speaker 2:That's true. They do. All in tequila.
Speaker 1:I didn't see anything very specific. I mean, it's it's it's all in. Like, they're they are super connected. If you partner with them in some ways, like, you would expect to get more of a read on where they're spending time in DC, what they're seeing. That seems like there are cleared lines on what you can share, like, what what turns you into a lobbying firm and what I don't know, David Sacks, but I want more expertise in government.
Speaker 1:Experts tend to have made money in their area of expertise, have friends in their area of expertise. If our peep if people can't have history or friends in a field before leading it, then our leaders won't know anything. And I thought this was a dig good distillation of, like, the core debate about, like, should you have someone who has never participated in in in in an industry overseeing it?
Speaker 2:And I believe there's some readers
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And probably people at The New York Times that would like somebody that hasn't participated in either industry to be running in a role like that Yeah. And just blanket against both industries and just sort of, like, hold them back.
Speaker 1:So Alex says, the construct you're thinking of is called a council. It's been used for a long time to allow the elected, with limited knowledge on a domain, to get a consensus of options from a range of experts. This minimizes conflicts and prevents kleptocracy. Isn't that what a czar is? I thought I I thought I thought he Saxx was a council.
Speaker 1:He's not an elected official. The elected official is Donald Trump, the president. And there's a variety of folks there. And Sax is appointed to this czar role. He doesn't have the ability to just create legislation out of thin air.
Speaker 2:Was trying to look up the history of czars. Right?
Speaker 1:It is weird. Have we always had czars? Know there was a whole thing about First border baiting
Speaker 2:czar Bernard Barak appointed by President Woodrow Wilson to head the War Industries Board in 1918. The press dubbed him the industry czar because he had sweeping powers to coordinate wartime production. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed several czars to manage the massive wartime economy, including a shipping czar and a synthetic rubber czar. These roles were essential.
Speaker 1:Synthetic rubber czar?
Speaker 2:One of the most iconic
Speaker 1:Stoked for that.
Speaker 2:People don't talk about the need for our ongoing need for synthetic rubber czar. No. These roles were essential because existing government bureaucracies were too slow to handle the urgent demands of total war. During the nineteen seventy three oil crisis, Nixon appointed William Simon as the energy czar to manage fuel shortages. Anyways, again, I think unless you're just blanket against these industries, it's hard to argue that you want somebody that doesn't have any expertise in said industries.
Speaker 2:If you're the average New York Times subscriber, this is probably they were probably very excited by this story. All in pod about to be an all timer after this article. Do you think it's possible that David and Jason coordinated to get this hit piece done to grow All In even further?
Speaker 1:The timeline truly is in turmoil over this. Lots of people are sending me the New York Times story on David Sacks. Outside of the all in sponsorship proposal, which feels oblivious at best, corrupt at worst, I'm not seeing much in there that's new, at least to those who've been following. Dan Primak says, as an aside, it's true that SACS slash Kraft still have a ton of AI investments. Thing is, all tech investments at this point are AI investments.
Speaker 1:It's kind of like Internet investments at this point. If you invest in tech startups, you de facto invest in AI startups. If anything, going deep into politics has been a net negative for all in, at least in my opinion, we would we would be growing faster and wouldn't have lost some percentage of our left leaning audience if we'd stuck to tech, markets, science, VC, etcetera. That's an interesting take. I still think It politics it so made it so big.
Speaker 2:Well, yeah, and it made the content polarizing. Yeah. But I think that polarizing in media is good. Yeah. You actually get more attention.
Speaker 2:Not necessarily good from all points of view Yeah. But good from a pure just like reach.
Speaker 1:CNBC is bigger than Bloomberg by like a pretty significant margin because Bloomberg's like extra wonky and CNBC is a little bit I mean, it's, like, literally called Consumer Business News. Like, that's what the C stands for, I believe. And then and then you have Fox, which is even more. It it like, Fox News is political, and it's much bigger ratings than CNBC or Bloomberg. And then ESPN is, like, by far the biggest.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Because it's like sports. Everyone loves sports.
Speaker 2:When my wife asks what we should eat for dinner but says no to my first two suggestions.
Speaker 1:Are back to the age I like it. And then, when she asks what I want for dinner from Bazelord, the answer to that question will reveal itself. I think there will be lots of possible answers. Very true. It's a great great new meme template.
Speaker 1:I like it. When my husband asks how many Amazon packages are still on the way, the answer to that question will reveal itself. I think there will be lots of possible answers. But I think that's actually true. Like, if he creates some new AI, like, there's a bunch of different ways to monetize it.
Speaker 1:We know this is a fact. But, of course, Ilya is now joining the ranks of Yan Lakoun and Rich Sutton and Andhra Kirpathi of sort of industry legends that are more or less saying that scaling is over and LLMs are dead
Speaker 2:Scaling is over and LLMs are a dead end. Aw, you're sweet. Scaling is over and LLMs are a dead end. Hello? Human resources?
Speaker 1:I love his meme template because it's like, yeah, Jan Lakoun has been saying the same thing.
Speaker 2:He says, Jan says, for the record, my current BMI is twenty four.
Speaker 1:This guy rocks. And the timeline was in turmoil. Lots of people very, you know, upset with semi analysis latest post
Speaker 2:How dare you dare you
Speaker 1:take shit. A they took a swing at the king. They said TPU v7. Google takes a swing at the king. King is, of course, NVIDIA.
Speaker 1:They are asking, is this potentially the end of the CUDA moat? Anthropix they're talking about Anthropix one gigawatt TPU purchase, the more TPU, Meta, SSI, xAI, OpenAI, Anthropic buy, the more GPU CapEx you save, and they're going into what the battle between TPU and the next generation GPU out of NVIDIA will look like. This upsets some people. There's a lot of folks who are long NVIDIA. Either they have invested in NVIDIA, they made a lot of money in NVIDIA, or their whole business is tied to NVIDIA or AMD, even.
Speaker 1:In general, the response to this article was very positive, but there were some folks who were very upset by it.
Speaker 2:And on accounts that that put a noun and then capital as their name Yes. And suddenly they're expert on
Speaker 1:everything. Yes. Yeah. It was it was a little odd seeing the credentialism come out from the Anans because, like, I I don't think we should get in the two can play that game camp. It's it's a little bit rough.
Speaker 1:So a lot of people are going back and forth on, you know, can semi analysis be trusted? Because they're writing about about, you know, NVIDIA and and and, Dylan. I think some people didn't understand that he was joking. Zephyr here has a post. Dylan is being tongue in cheek, but he's not wrong.
Speaker 1:NVIDIA was extremely dominant for the last three years, as we saw in the stock. It's up 10x over the last three years. New competitors will cause a reduction in market share and margin compression, but TAM is big, so revenue profits won't go down. 75% of GM is just unsustainable. Hyperscalers will also use the cheap TPUs threat to extract better deals from Jensen, priority access for Rubin Feynman, or discounts on GPUs.
Speaker 1:Jensen called Altman and initiated the $10,000,000,000 deal after he saw the information about, the information article about OpenAI testing TPUs. This is in reaction to that point about OpenAI hasn't even deployed TPUs yet, and they've saved 30%.
Speaker 2:Dylan's speed running through all the learnings of sell side research, industry capture, pissing off IRR execs, gatekeeping info based on client tier, difficulty scaling beyond single star analysts, distorted representation of your notes, eventually spending too much time marketing versus researching, amazing biz. Obviously, Dylan would push back on
Speaker 1:He did.
Speaker 2:On a lot of this stuff. If you actually read through the entire article, there's nothing in the article should actually in this article should be that surprising because so much of the article is just referencing old semi analysis research. Part of, I think, the surprise here is just how much faster this conversation has really come to a head than people may have expected. At least like surface level on the timeline, I think people felt like the TPU threat was maybe like a 2026, 2027 versus being like, it's a part of these buying discussions right now and and negotiations.
Speaker 1:The other buried lead in the article was, of course, about, pre training. OpenAI's leading researchers have not completed a successful full scale pre training run that was broadly for a new frontier model since GPT-four point zero in May 2024. Like, if this was wrong, you would imagine that there would be a whole bunch of reaction from OpenAI people or, like, proxies or surrogates, right? People quote tweeting and be like, that's just not true. Wow, something else is cooked.
Speaker 1:But the fact that I haven't seen anyone respond to this and say like, oh, this is this is wrong. Like, we actually did. Not that not that, like, that's the north star for what the business is. Like, the business's job is to create profits, right? It's not to complete successful full scale pre training runs.
Speaker 1:That's not the goal. That's just something that they might do in service of making a better model, making a better product. But ultimately, it's whatever the customers want. Yeah. And if the customers are happy with four point zero level base pre train and a bunch of reasoning on top, that's fine.
Speaker 1:Also, I mean, really, it does make me happy that we didn't go deeper into ranking people because the the it does feel like when you create a list of tiers and rank a bunch of people, you're just creating a big bucket of enemies down at the bottom of like people who want you dead because you rank them low. My theory is that Meta deliberately leaked the story to the information about about acquiring Google's TPUs. For Meta, it's a classic risk free power play. The moment Jensen Huang reaches wind catches wind of Meta using Google silicon, NVIDIA is likely to rush in with an investment. They might even be negotiating as we speak.
Speaker 1:This allows Meta to secure capital and shift from burning their own cash to potentially getting discounts or effectively buying NVIDIA chips with NVIDIA's own money. Plus, if they actually do secure Google TPUs, they solve their compute shortage. It covers all bases.
Speaker 2:Okay, but the issue is how many red flags would be waving if Jensen was like, yeah, we're investing $20,000,000,000 in Meta. We're very excited about Meta and owning a piece of
Speaker 1:Yeah, that seems very, very odd.
Speaker 2:So he's in a position where I don't know what kind of leverage Jensen has in those conversations with Meta because he doesn't want to discount. And it's not like OpenAI where you can just announce an investment or an Anthropic, etcetera. So how does any type of rebate actually happen is the question.
Speaker 1:So Clive Chan says, keep seeing stuff about TPU. Has anything materially new happened? There's no evidence Google has ever trained Gemini on non TPU hardware going back to pre GPT models like BERT. TPUs predate NVIDIA's own tensor cores. Anthropic and character and SSI and mid journey have long used TPUs.
Speaker 1:I'd be surprised if Meta weren't looking at them. NVIDIA's moat has never been deep for the big labs. See OpenAI deciding it could do better than CUDA and investing in Triton instead, regularly edging out C U D N N on benchmarks. There's nothing magical structural about any of this, just good engineers doing good work. TPUs are not that much more efficient than GPUs, and small performance per watt difference are dwarfed by whether Meta has the right kernels and systems engineering talent to pull it off.
Speaker 1:Both NVIDIA's and Google's moats are small, and we are still at the point where individual good engineers can flip the entire balance. Why was this not priced in? This is all super old public info. I have a feeling that Clive Chan, who I guess is over at was at Tesla and then OpenAI, is is a little bit of, like, first time in the public markets, first time realizing that the people who trade this stuff are not necessarily, like, on the super inside of the labs actually understanding the decisions that are being made inside the labs. Like it's a completely separate ecosystem.
Speaker 1:And that's why organizations like Semi Analysis exist. Josh Kushner is partnering with OpenAI. We are excited to announce a strategic partnership between OpenAI and Thrive Holdings. Through our partnership, OpenAI will become an equity holder in holdings, and collectively, we will set out to deliver frontier technology to our customers. For decades, technology has transformed largest industries from the outside in.
Speaker 1:We believe the AI paradigm will be different in that some of the most profound transformations will now occur from the inside out. We view the businesses we, that we own and operate as the right reward system to build, test, and improve industry specific products and models. The race is on. Is it inside out or outside in transformation? What's gonna happen?
Speaker 1:These are the new fast take off short timeline, long timeline. Are you an inside out guy or an outside in guy? This is gonna be the defining debate over the next couple days.
Speaker 2:Well Get
Speaker 1:ready to lock in. We'll be covering it here. We'll probably have some people on who are digging into this, investing in this, getting, you know, have long takes, short takes, who knows? But I wanna get to the bottom of what this outside in versus inside out transformation will look like. You can feel the panic behind the urgency and intensity with which people are defending NVIDIA.
Speaker 1:It feels visceral and quite intense. You can tell how much is riding on this. It makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 2:I thought it was notable. PagerDuty has fallen to a $1,100,000,000 market cap.
Speaker 1:That was
Speaker 2:a good they're at $500,000,000 of ARRs are trading. They're not growing anymore. They're trading at 2.1x ARR. It's profitable according to Jason Lemkin over at Saster. So yeah, rough time out there if you're not growing regardless of the revenue scale.
Speaker 2:Two days ago, we shared that Enron Mhmm. Back 11/29/2001, NVIDIA replaced Enron in the S and P 500. I saw this post go out from our incredible team. And I immediately Googled to fact
Speaker 1:I was like, there's no way. Someone has made a terrible mistake on our team, and we are doing fake news unironically now. We used to have some fun. But apparently, this is real.
Speaker 2:It's real.
Speaker 1:It's real.
Speaker 2:Vincent was like, I'll take that spot.
Speaker 1:November 29. Obviously, that's not how it works. It is It is much more mathematical than that, I believe. Standard and Poor's picks the largest companies. And after certain ebbs and flows of the market, they swap folks in and out.
Speaker 1:But this went pretty viral, 5,000 likes. But what is really interesting is, of course, the NVIDIA N Rod comparisons are just so silly to me. What is incredible is this branded shirt he's wearing. Look at this thing.
Speaker 2:Fantastic.
Speaker 1:So awesome. I love it.
Speaker 2:Not enough people trying to go snipe vintage Nvidia merch.
Speaker 1:It's a great shirt. It's a great look. And I feel like it's got to make a comeback. The button down this is the pre Silicon Valley, I'm just in a t shirt era. But it's post suits, you know?
Speaker 1:It's like we're not suits. We're working in technology. We're still going to throw on a collar, but we're going to dress it down a little bit. No tie.
Speaker 2:Guys, scroll up on this for a second. Yeah. Oh, keep going, keep going. Oh, who's not who's not calling? Tyler, you gotta follow the
Speaker 1:account.
Speaker 2:No. This is not my account.
Speaker 1:I think this is a this is more of like a burner account situation. Oh, it's a it's
Speaker 2:a scraper that we use to for for
Speaker 1:It is. It is.
Speaker 2:You correct that, Tyler. Yeah. Come on. Oxford dictionary didn't get the memo. Apparently, rage bait named
Speaker 1:word the year.
Speaker 2:What? I think it I think it I No.
Speaker 1:No. No. I they're actually right. That it would be the word But of the it is so funny that you you posted this and then and then Oxford dictionary.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So this is true. Rage according to BBC, Rage Bate named Oxford word of the year 2025. It certainly feels that way on the timeline.
Speaker 1:Your post, 1,000,000 views on this.
Speaker 2:And, we will see you tomorrow.
Speaker 1:See you tomorrow. Cheers. Bye.