0:00

right, everybody, welcome back to the

0:02

number one podcast in the world,

0:04

the all -in podcast after a triumphant

0:06

week last week. We had an

0:08

amazing episode. Thanks to Larry

0:10

Summers and Ezra Klein for joining

0:12

us for the great tariff

0:14

debate number four episode in the

0:16

world last week. And,

0:19

man, we got a banger ready for

0:21

you today before I get to that couple

0:23

of quick plugs. Did you call the DNC

0:25

to clean up the roadkill, Jason? I'm an

0:28

independent folks. Just I know these guys keep

0:30

trying to pin me as a Democrat. I'm

0:32

an independent critical thinker for life. But

0:34

I do think Ezra is got a

0:36

little PTSD. I haven't from Ezra. the

0:38

DMZ have a roadkill cleanup crew? You

0:41

know, it's amazing. You have an episode

0:43

like that where I thought you'd make great

0:45

progress on dealing with those issues and

0:47

came to some consensus at the end. And

0:49

then every single person universally, if they're

0:51

on the right, oh my God, Sax, you

0:53

can come off, destroyed them. You to

0:55

run the left. The left's position was, oh

0:57

my god, Saxon, Chamath finally got destroyed.

0:59

Anyway, you decide for yourself. We're just here

1:01

to talk about the most important news

1:03

stories. And all

1:06

in some... I think Chamath is right. I

1:08

think they sent the same crew that cleans

1:10

up the armadillos on the road. All

1:15

righty, here we go. September 7th to Angeles.

1:17

There a couple of armadillos left lying on

1:19

the side of the road. All right, okay. All

1:21

is going into its fourth year,

1:24

yada yada. September 7th to 9th,

1:26

apply. All in dot com slash

1:28

summit. Pronouns everywhere. I'm

1:31

trying to clean

1:33

up the pronouns. Shovels

1:35

weren't big enough for all the pronouns.

1:37

Freberg was on Jeopardy! Again, celebrity Jeopardy!

1:39

And I don't want to ruin it

1:42

for you, but he had an amazing

1:44

comeback victory. But really excited to have

1:46

on the program today one of your favorites. He

1:48

was on the show. Pre -election one

1:50

of my favorites Robert F. Kennedy

1:52

is with us again RFK. How are

1:54

you doing? I love the glasses.

1:56

You're gonna make America healthy and again

1:58

and welcome to the program RFK

2:00

Junior. We found out that

2:02

autism is caused mainly by

2:04

this show and we're gonna

2:07

have to take action. Started

2:09

to look at the different

2:11

causes, but we're thinking it is

2:13

the debate between Ezra Klein

2:16

and Larry Summers that is the

2:18

real villain here. Tremendous.

2:37

Everybody knows RFK is going to

2:39

do a great job. He's a little

2:41

bit weird, but wife is a

2:43

smoke show. I mean, an incredible wife,

2:45

RFK Junior. Incredible. Not

2:49

as good. Not as good. Okay. Well, I'm

2:51

trying to land it. Yeah. What am I supposed to do? I'm up against

2:53

some professional. You know, so, uh, welcome

2:55

to the program. moderate so they can

2:57

Yeah. Okay. Here we go. Don't talk over me. Okay. You

3:00

just sit, sit down. Can you do

3:02

what you did last week? Three, go. what's

3:05

that? What's that moderate for narcissists

3:07

who want to add one more

3:09

thing? Yeah, let the experts talk.

3:11

Yes, of course. Why

3:13

can't I talk? Why can't

3:15

I talk? Can

3:18

you please pass the ball? Just pass

3:20

the ball. Here we go. Let's

3:22

welcome our guest, Tim Dillon. He's

3:25

an incredibly funny comedian. He

3:27

has a new special. I'm your

3:29

mother on Netflix. He's the host. of

3:32

the award -winning, now in its

3:34

10th year, Emmy -winning, award

3:37

-winning. He's got the Emmy,

3:39

he's got the Tony, he's still gotta

3:41

get the Grammy and the Oscar, the one, the

3:43

only Tim Dillon of the Tim Dillon Show Pockets.

3:45

Thank you so much, thank you for having

3:47

me. I feel like I'm having a Zoom meeting

3:49

with Doge to prove what I've done in the

3:51

last week. the

3:54

way, this is the last thing

3:56

someone at the EPA sees. It's just

3:58

these four guys. They're just staring a

4:00

guy like Chamath going, well, we

4:02

tested some soil. I

4:04

think we got those numbers

4:06

back. That's what it feels

4:08

like here. I feel like I'm on

4:10

trial just trying to justify. My

4:12

stupid job. Would you

4:14

like eight months severance? Would you like

4:17

to be fired today? Which would you prefer?

4:20

It would have been very funny if

4:22

we actually were just if as

4:24

soon as Tim said that we had

4:26

Steve Davis, but yeah. Well,

4:29

interestingly, I, you

4:31

know, I don't want to speak out of

4:33

school or embarrass our guests, but Tim

4:36

was supposed to join us in February. Yes.

4:38

And like. The star he is, as

4:40

I mentioned, he's got the Emmy, he's got

4:42

the Tony, still working on the Oscar. And

4:45

the Grammy, he was supposed to be with us and

4:47

he canceled last minute and then we found out why.

4:50

He ditched us to spend the day

4:52

with Steve Bannon and going to Steve

4:54

Bannon podcast. Here they are. That's true.

4:56

What is this? Look at that. That's

4:58

Steve Bannon and Timmy. I a

5:00

23 in me and they didn't tell me my

5:02

ethnicity, but the only thing that came back was they

5:04

said that Steve Bannon was my father. Yes.

5:06

And here they are on the cyclone in Brooklyn.

5:08

Beautiful. They went out to Little

5:10

Italy. Little Italy here. By

5:12

the way, they've done a pretty decent

5:14

job. Wrapping up with

5:16

a little hookah. Or maybe a little bit more

5:19

in there. I don't know. Do you think Bannon

5:21

is 420 friendly? You tell us, Timmy.

5:24

I think anything, I mean, Bannon would

5:26

tell you if we could start farming

5:28

marijuana in America and the American working

5:30

class could share in the profits, I

5:32

think he'd be 420 friendly. He

5:35

would be 420 friendly, 420 friendly.

5:37

No Taiwanese marijuana though. Nothing, you

5:39

know, it's gotta be American. Can

5:41

I give a quick shout out, which

5:43

is 10 months ago, Tim Dillon. One

5:46

on the Tucker Carlson show I think

5:48

the title is called Disney boomers and

5:50

the creepy corporations that pretend to love

5:52

you really one of the Best pieces

5:54

of content I watched all of last

5:56

year Nick you should put the link

5:58

in the show notes. Thank you It's

6:00

incredible like thank you the whole thing

6:02

and 10 Two hours while spent I

6:04

would encourage everybody to watch it. It's

6:06

timeless content actually real good cultural observation

6:08

at the moment. It's really good Two

6:10

white guys talking in a in a

6:12

in a garage in Maine seems he

6:14

has a certain way. You know, I

6:16

I went to and did it there

6:18

and he has a way of just

6:20

kind of like slipping you into this

6:22

state of comfort. All of a sudden,

6:24

I just started talking about all the

6:26

money I've lost. He's great. He's great.

6:33

It's like Megan Kelly is great at it, too. I

6:35

just did her thing. And, you

6:37

know, she does it at her house and

6:39

I just show up and she's sitting

6:41

behind the desk and she goes, hi. And

6:43

you sit down and you're, and then

6:45

she goes, so your mother's a schizophrenic. Like

6:48

immediately you start crying to Meg and

6:50

Kelly. They're just good. They know what they're

6:52

doing. They know what they're doing. Let's

6:54

get to the docket. H20s

6:56

banned. The US and China

6:58

trade war has been escalating

7:01

on Monday the White House

7:03

informed Nvidia that they were

7:05

putting an indefinite export restriction

7:07

on NVIDIA's H20 chips to

7:09

China. And so in

7:12

this filing, NVIDIA said it

7:14

expects a $5 .5 billion hit

7:16

to the quarterly earnings stock drop,

7:18

6%. For those of you

7:20

who don't know, H20 is essentially

7:22

the weaker version of the

7:24

H100. It was designed actually to

7:26

comply with these export restrictions.

7:28

on AI chips and allow them,

7:30

NVIDIA, to sell something into

7:33

China. NVIDIA CEO, Jensen Huang, was

7:35

visiting China today. He told

7:37

Chinese state media, quote, the China market is

7:39

very important to us. Yada yada. Saks,

7:41

you're here. I

7:43

think you got some official information

7:45

for us on this. What's

7:48

the story here? Wasn't this supposed

7:50

to be the chip that

7:52

was made for China? In

7:54

a sense, I mean, there is a long history

7:56

to this. Okay. So first of all, just

7:58

to be clear, we're not talking about We're

8:00

talking about export controls. And

8:03

the export controls are designed

8:05

to prevent certain sensitive technologies,

8:07

technologies that could have a

8:09

dual use potential military as

8:11

well as consumer application from

8:13

going to China. And

8:16

this goes all the way

8:18

back to 2019. The first

8:20

Trump administration placed a ban

8:22

on extreme ultraviolet photography equipment

8:24

going to China. This

8:26

is the key technology in the

8:28

printing of transistors on the silicon

8:31

wafer in the semiconductor manufacturing process. And

8:33

there's only one company in the world

8:35

that makes these machines that cost like 200

8:37

million dollars is called ASML. It's a

8:39

company in the Netherlands. In any

8:41

event, the first term of administration prevented

8:44

these machines from going to China, which

8:46

I think in hindsight was a really

8:48

far sighted decision. Because if

8:50

it weren't for that, China

8:52

might today be dominating global

8:54

manufacturing of semiconductors and their

8:56

inability to get that sort

8:58

of lithography equipment, I think,

9:00

definitely put a dent in

9:02

their plans. Subsequent to

9:04

that, in 2022, the Biden administration

9:06

started adding leading edge chips to

9:08

the expert control list, like you

9:10

said, the H100. NVIDIA then

9:12

designed a new chip that was

9:15

basically a version of the H100, but

9:17

they reduced the amount of flops

9:19

or computational power. just below the thresholds

9:21

they continue selling to China. That

9:23

was called the H800. The

9:25

Biden administration then added the H800 to the

9:27

expert control list in 2023. So

9:30

NVIDIA developed the H20, which

9:32

again is kind of like

9:35

a nerf version of the

9:37

H100. This has less computational

9:39

power. I

9:41

think the issue is that FLOPs isn't

9:43

the only criteria by which you

9:45

can measure the power of a chip.

9:47

There's also now memory bandwidth. And

9:50

in the new paradigm of

9:52

reinforcement learning and test time compute,

9:54

memory bandwidth actually matters more

9:56

than the amount of flops. And

9:58

if you look at the memory bandwidth on

10:00

the H20, it actually has 20 % more memory

10:02

bandwidth than the H100. So I

10:05

think there's a view that this chip

10:07

is just frankly too good. And the

10:09

response I'd have to people who don't

10:11

think we should be restricting this is,

10:13

Are you against expert controls in general

10:15

or you just think that we're drawing

10:17

the line in the wrong place here? Because,

10:20

you know, I've heard folks like our friends

10:22

like Bill Gurley and so forth say that. Yeah,

10:24

it's about to pull. That we're making a

10:26

mistake. But I think the question for those people

10:28

is, would you sell them everything? I mean,

10:30

if China wanted to buy the latest NVIDIA chip,

10:32

the GB200, would you sell that to them?

10:34

Would you sell a million of those? Would you

10:36

sell them five million if they're willing to

10:38

pay a premium? It seems to

10:40

me that at some point you have to

10:42

say, that some technologies are just too

10:44

sensitive to be sold to China. And so

10:46

then the question is, are you drawing

10:48

the line in the right place? Let me

10:51

bring Freberg in on that. Freberg, friends

10:53

of the pod like Gavin Baker, said these

10:55

tariffs and these type of bans are

10:57

going to essentially guarantee that America will lose

10:59

AI because, and Gurley as well has

11:01

this position, that we're now going to make

11:03

China force them to make their own

11:05

chips. Now, necessity will be

11:07

the mother invention, and it's going to

11:09

escalate, and we'd be better off

11:11

just selling them. these instead of the

11:13

latest ones. What's your take on

11:15

that, that this will be the inspiration

11:17

for them to build their own

11:19

Nvidia? It's an important question. Last

11:21

year, China announced

11:24

and began a $37

11:26

billion investment in

11:28

developing their own 3

11:30

-nanometer chip technology. So

11:32

the EUV lithography systems

11:35

that SAX is referencing, require

11:38

these wavelengths of light at about 13

11:40

and a half nanometer, which is, you

11:43

know, the previous technology was like 200

11:45

plus nanometer. So it's very, very small

11:47

wavelengths of light that you have to

11:49

be able to manipulate in a very

11:51

kind of discrete way to print circuits

11:53

that are just three nanometer scale. And

11:55

so it turns out that last year,

11:58

China made a claim that this investment

12:00

they had made was starting to pay

12:02

off and they had developed their own

12:04

EUV system. And they're

12:06

big semiconductor companies called the

12:08

Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation,

12:10

or SMIC in China. They

12:13

launched a chip, a seven nanometer

12:15

chip with Huawei in their Mate

12:18

60 Pro, which is sort of

12:20

like their iPhone competitor in China.

12:22

And so they're proclaiming that they've already got

12:24

this EUV technology from what I understand

12:26

in sacks would know better than I. It

12:28

sounds like there was a lot of reverse

12:30

engineering and work around. of

12:32

existing technology in order to deliver

12:34

that system. But they

12:37

may now already be investing in and

12:39

developing their own system. So,

12:41

J .Cal, I think they're doing it either way.

12:43

I think that they're going to invest and

12:45

build their own EUV and chip manufacturing capacity either

12:47

way. And the question is, does this slow

12:49

them down or limit their ability on the application

12:51

or the AI layer to kind of be

12:53

held back for some period of time? it accelerates

12:55

because they have no choice but to accelerate

12:58

their commitment to it. Tim,

13:00

you've been talking about these EUV

13:02

technologies in the 200 nanometer. It's

13:04

my entire space. It's my entire

13:06

special. It's a little crazy that

13:08

you'd rip me off like this. My

13:10

entire special is about

13:12

the lithograph. And that's

13:15

the hour that I

13:17

do. You know, I'm of

13:19

the mind if you give a man

13:21

a chip, he makes one semiconductor or

13:23

a few. But if you teach a

13:25

man to make a chip, he makes

13:27

multiple semiconductors and invades Taiwan. So

13:29

that's where I am with this, you know? I

13:33

think we should keep them dependent.

13:35

Keep selling it to them. Keep

13:37

selling it to them. Treat it

13:39

like purpose. understand how this works.

13:42

If somebody becomes addicted to the good stuff,

13:44

then they come back. You don't want

13:46

to give them too much. And you hide

13:48

a little, you backdoor the technology with

13:50

a little surveillance and stuff to have some

13:52

fun. Have some fun. You know, that's

13:54

been done before. Absolutely. Sure, back

13:56

doors all the time. door technology, a

13:58

little surveillance capability, you slip it in

14:01

there. Yeah. Chamath, what's your

14:03

thoughts coming around the horn here? You

14:05

were sort of talking about, I

14:07

think, publicly, obviously, you've got

14:10

GROC and so you're in the

14:12

space with chips. Does this

14:14

net -net end of the day

14:16

slow them down or slow them

14:18

down short term, speed them up

14:20

long term? I think that the

14:22

technology that they need is extremely

14:24

non -trivial, and I do think that

14:26

it actually slows them down quite

14:28

a bit if they don't have

14:30

access to it. Can

14:32

I just take a step back and up -level

14:34

this? I think it was in 2017, the

14:37

State Council of China published

14:39

this plan, and they were incredibly

14:41

transparent and honest. They said,

14:43

this plan is for China to

14:46

become a global leader in

14:48

AI by 2030. And

14:50

it said, so this is in 2017.

14:52

And they said, by 2020, we need

14:54

to have made iconic advances. By 2025,

14:57

we should be a major engine of the industry.

14:59

And by 2030, they should

15:01

occupy the commanding heights, they

15:04

said, in AI tech. OK.

15:06

So why is that important? To

15:09

be honest with you, I think the real problem

15:11

that we have is that Nvidia is not doing what

15:13

is in the best interests of the United States. Oh,

15:16

David mentioned this. When the

15:18

US banned the sale of

15:20

the top end GPUs, the

15:22

A100 and the H100, they

15:24

quickly introduced the A800 and

15:26

H800. What does that mean?

15:28

Well, all it was was just a chip that

15:30

was basically the same. It's

15:33

slightly reduced the data transfer speed so

15:35

that it went under the export control

15:37

threshold, but it was still

15:39

really usable. Then late last

15:41

year, they introduced this thing called this

15:43

H20 that was explicitly designed for

15:45

China and to be compliant with US

15:47

rules at the time, which again

15:49

gives these guys substantial performance. Okay, so

15:52

what do you have? You

15:54

have a 2017 plan that they've been executing

15:56

against, which is to say, we want to

15:58

dominate this space. And you

16:00

have an American company that has been

16:02

working around the guidelines at every turn

16:04

to try to land silicon into the

16:06

hands of China. So then you would

16:08

say, well, maybe there's not that much

16:10

going into China. Nick, can you just

16:12

throw up the chart that I sent

16:14

you about Nvidia's revenue composition? So

16:17

let's just call a spade

16:19

a spade, guys. I think we

16:21

can all do the math.

16:23

About 47 % of all of

16:25

Nvidia's revenue goes to China and

16:28

Chinese related countries. And

16:30

I think when you peel

16:32

back this onion, I think

16:34

what you will find is

16:36

a whole raft of companies that

16:38

were stood up to buy

16:40

these Nvidia GPUs to essentially act

16:42

as a way station for

16:44

China. And I think that is

16:46

the big problem, because it

16:48

doesn't mean that it was just

16:50

these chips that David and

16:52

his colleagues put on an export

16:54

control list. It was every

16:56

kind of chip. And now it

16:58

explains, every single time we

17:00

have an advance in the United States, how

17:03

is it that Alibaba shows up

17:05

with something incredible, DeepSeek shows

17:07

up with something better. At

17:09

every turn and at every step of

17:11

AI, they are at the same rate

17:13

or one step ahead. And I suspect

17:15

it's because that these chips are being

17:17

used in very sophisticated ways behind the scenes.

17:19

And I think that's the issue that

17:22

we need to address. So just to be

17:24

clear, the Insight

17:26

you have here the prediction is people are

17:28

selling these to Taiwan. They're selling them in

17:30

Singapore. I think it's more Hong Kong I

17:32

think it's a group that are zipping them

17:34

over to China mainland or letting them use

17:36

them I don't know if you saw but

17:39

I believe there was a report that there

17:41

was a couple Singaporeans that were arrested for

17:43

actually trying to bring the chips into China

17:45

I don't think it's necessarily that I think

17:47

what happens is you have some entity that

17:49

springs up You know ACME corporation ACME corp.com.

17:51

They show up in Bhutan or Cambodia or

17:53

Vietnam or Singapore And they

17:56

provide a PO, a purchase order to

17:58

NVIDIA, $300, $500,

18:00

$800 million. What

18:02

do you think NVIDIA is going to do? They're going

18:04

to think, well, this is a legitimate Singaporean entity. I'm

18:06

going to sell them the chips, whatever they want. It

18:08

checks all the boxes and

18:10

they look away. And

18:13

what we need to now figure

18:15

out is what happens once those chips

18:17

get delivered. It is the

18:19

only explanation for this. You don't

18:22

have this requirement for this number

18:24

of GPUs for those end markets.

18:26

There is only one end market.

18:28

That's an explosive allegation. Saks,

18:31

what do you think of

18:33

this theory more broadly? I think

18:35

it is a fact that

18:37

there have been both legal and

18:40

illegal attempts to evade the

18:42

US export controls. That

18:44

is true. And there's a number

18:46

of companies that have done

18:48

it. For example, last year, there

18:50

was a case where TSMC

18:52

was discovered to have produced something

18:54

like 3 million chips that

18:56

went into the Huawei Ascend 910C

18:58

chips. I think there's like

19:00

3 million dies or something that

19:02

went into the Huawei Ascend

19:04

chips. And I think they're being

19:06

fined for that. And again,

19:08

this is all public information. Now,

19:11

they claimed that they thought it

19:13

was for a company called, I

19:15

think, SoftCo. It's basically a Bitcoin

19:17

like ASICS company. But nonetheless, this

19:19

did happen. So there have been

19:21

attempts to set up shell companies

19:23

to circumvent the export controls, and

19:25

it is a very big problem.

19:27

Tim, what do you think more

19:30

broadly about what Trump is doing

19:32

with this trade war in China?

19:34

Any takes on China, Taiwan, and

19:36

just how Americans should look at,

19:38

hey, maybe we have to buy

19:40

some more high -quality products. Maybe

19:42

we don't get things on Timu

19:44

as cheap with these $850 exemptions,

19:46

et cetera. I think roughly Trump's

19:48

instincts are correct. I think the

19:50

way that the tariffs rolled out

19:52

seemed to be incredibly chaotic. I

19:54

think that's a huge problem with

19:56

a lot of what the Trump

19:58

administration does. They seem to

20:00

have the correct instincts, but they

20:03

have like a very sloppy rollout, right?

20:05

Like everything's a hard launch. Everything's

20:07

incredibly... I don't know that things are

20:09

messaged the right way. The whole

20:11

doge thing is... little bit of a

20:13

fiasco because the messaging seemed off

20:15

like nobody was out really talking about

20:18

what they were doing and why

20:20

they were doing it. You

20:23

know, I don't know how well this

20:25

works. You know, I mean, you have a

20:27

very integrated global economy. You guys know

20:29

more about that than I do. Are

20:31

you able to unwind that? And if

20:33

you do, you have to unwind it in

20:35

certain areas and certain areas you're going

20:37

to have to allow to

20:39

probably remain relatively stable and

20:41

consistent, right? I mean, if

20:44

you listen to Ray Dalio, he

20:46

talks about like a disaster coming with

20:48

monetary policy, right? The whole unwinding

20:50

of these economic and political structures kind

20:52

of happening at once. I

20:55

don't know. I think Americans do

20:57

over -consume a lot of crap. I

21:00

think cheap goods aren't

21:02

necessarily the highest organizing

21:05

principle of a life.

21:07

I think people have been

21:10

sold the idea that

21:12

cheap goods are more important

21:14

than having a stable

21:16

functioning job and family. I

21:18

think the gig economy has

21:20

been sold to Americans as a

21:22

way to offer them freedom

21:25

and really in chaos at the

21:27

expense of the stability that

21:29

used to come with a job

21:31

with benefits that you stayed

21:33

in for. But

21:35

the other component to that is,

21:37

you know, we have

21:39

to make sure that, like, you know,

21:41

we don't have skyrocketing prices that completely

21:43

decimate people either. So I think you

21:45

need to find a balance. I want

21:47

to see my friends work in factories. I

21:50

want them to get hurt. I want

21:52

to release the safety standards. I

21:54

want child labor. Children are

21:56

terrorists, many of them. They

21:59

start fights in malls. They have

22:01

flash mobs. They run around Chicago.

22:03

trying to kill people that are just

22:06

trying to have shellfish showers on

22:08

the river. So yes, children

22:10

should work. My friend should

22:12

work in a plastics factory. Door

22:15

dash is a horrible job. You

22:18

lose a finger at a factory. It's

22:20

a story. Delivering burritos is

22:22

a hell. Driving Uber,

22:24

all these horrible degrading things we make

22:26

people do. And then tell them

22:28

it's great. And then we look,

22:30

you know, you should destigmatize. being an

22:32

electrician, a plumber, a contractor,

22:34

all these things that when I was

22:37

told, you know, when I was growing up,

22:39

they'd point to a guy doing construction and go,

22:41

you're going to do that if you don't do your

22:43

homework. And then the people that did their homework

22:45

are all, you know, bankrupt. And that construction guy, you

22:48

know, is killing, is killing, is doing pretty

22:50

well. And so what he went to January six,

22:52

he went there peacefully. But the

22:54

whole thing is like, I think

22:56

you need to figure out, you

22:59

know, how to kind of

23:01

reintroduce the idea that this

23:03

gig economy, where people serve

23:05

from one unfulfilling nightmare to

23:07

the next, should

23:09

be thought. Yes, better

23:11

to be in a factory, losing

23:14

a finger in the field. In

23:17

David's estimation, when

23:19

you're talking about these companies that

23:21

are set up to get these chips

23:23

that evade export controls, you

23:25

think is that the Chinese government

23:27

doing that? Is that an intelligence agency

23:29

doing that? Who would be setting

23:31

those companies up? Is it people that

23:33

are interested purely in profit and

23:35

that are then selling those chips? That's

23:37

super interesting. Well,

23:40

I think you have to ask the

23:42

question, Qui Bono. I mean, who benefits?

23:44

Right. think clearly the shell companies, the

23:46

front companies are set up by either

23:48

the Chinese government or entities in China

23:50

to evade the export controls because ultimately

23:52

they want the chips. However, I think

23:54

there is also a problem that Lenin

23:57

described as the the capitalist will

23:59

sell us the rope with which to

24:01

hang themselves. And I do

24:03

think there are a lot of Western companies

24:05

that will look the other way or turn

24:07

to blind eye and just haven't been enforcing

24:09

the rules as religiously as they should because

24:11

it's profitable not to. And this is where

24:14

I do think that the US government has

24:16

to be pretty tough. I mean, if we're

24:18

going to have expert controls in the first

24:20

place, I know there's some people who don't

24:22

think we should have them, but I do.

24:24

I mean, I don't think we should let. China

24:26

have access to our leading edge

24:28

AI technology, we have to make sure

24:30

that the export controls are effective. And

24:33

that means there has to be

24:35

some cracking down in order to make

24:37

that happen. Part of the

24:39

crackdown is we have to define

24:41

the boundary lines in a more

24:44

effective way with fewer loopholes so

24:46

that companies can't legally take advantage of

24:48

those loopholes, but also we're going

24:50

to need more monitoring, more inspection

24:52

and more enforcement. This

24:54

is one of the few areas of the government that

24:56

actually think needs more resources. I think

24:59

that Elon and Doge have identified many areas

25:01

of the government that are massively overstaffed. But

25:03

this is one area, there's

25:05

an agency inside the Department of

25:07

Commerce called BIS that actually

25:09

has to do all of this

25:11

monitoring and inspections and enforcement.

25:13

And I actually think they're understaffed

25:15

relative to the importance of

25:17

this particular task. Let's have a

25:19

thought starter for a second,

25:22

guys. Do you guys think that

25:24

if 47 % of all of

25:26

the AI capability and horsepower

25:28

is being shipped to three Asian

25:30

countries. Where

25:32

do you think the apps

25:34

that require that amount of

25:36

horsepower live? Is there

25:39

a cursor of Bhutan that we

25:41

did not know? Is

25:43

there a great shopping app in

25:45

Cambodia that's come out of

25:47

nowhere that's AI powered? I

25:49

think the answer is no. So we

25:51

already know what the answer is. The

25:54

question is, this is

25:56

a case where you have

25:58

plausible deniability, right? I

26:00

sell something to a

26:02

Singaporean registered company, plausible

26:05

deniability. What am I supposed to do?

26:07

You can't expect me to audit it. I

26:09

think that's what NVIDIA's answer will be

26:11

to this question. But what is

26:13

the real expectation? Let's flip

26:15

it on its head. Last week,

26:18

China in retaliation for tariffs,

26:21

Constrain the supply of rare earths

26:23

outside of China right leaving China.

26:25

You had certain factory lines that

26:27

just had to stop on a

26:29

dime right so. They're clearly in

26:31

a position to understand their supply

26:33

chain who benefits or who doesn't

26:35

benefit and can be hurt by

26:37

constraining supply and they're able to

26:39

affect that. At a minimum the

26:41

United States should have a mechanism to understand it

26:43

whether they do it or not should be up

26:46

to you know powers that be that are bigger

26:48

than. than the four of us or the five

26:50

of us. But that's my point, which is that

26:52

it is implausible that if you did one or

26:54

two layers of work, you would not find that

26:56

most of this traffic is being used by Chinese

26:58

organizations. That may be okay. And

27:00

that's a decision that the United States government

27:02

should make. But it's something that should be

27:04

disclosed to them somehow. And I think if

27:06

you look at the composition of revenue for

27:08

NVIDIA, it is inconceivable that there's a bunch

27:11

of Asian AI apps that are just crushing

27:13

it so hard. No, no. I mean, it's

27:15

so obvious what's happening there. I think

27:17

we Yeah, I think we don't

27:19

need to guess if Taiwan and Vietnam

27:21

do not have the need for that many

27:23

Domestically they're obviously flipping them to someone

27:25

right. It's a it's a it's a given

27:27

some percentage of those are being resold.

27:29

Hey, uh free bird You were on jeopardy

27:32

free bird went to the next round

27:34

wait This is the outro to that. I

27:36

wanted to get Tim in on the

27:38

Jeopardy thing. You should have done like a

27:40

more broadly accessible topic like ours. No,

27:42

the chips are great. I like the chips.

27:44

Do you like that, Tim? I learned

27:46

something. The plausible deniability is interesting. It's

27:49

like the banks that dealt with Jeffrey Epstein, and I know

27:51

it's a sore topic because he was the fifth man

27:53

on this show and RIP and we miss him. The

27:56

show has never been the same. honest, he would have been phenomenal

27:58

on the show. Let's just say he have been good on the show.

28:01

And he would have been good on the show,

28:03

but no, that was a very interesting topic.

28:05

I've never been on a podcast where topics been

28:08

handled. And I'm going to go on Joe

28:10

Rogan tomorrow and just say everything Chamath just said.

28:12

I'm going to go, I'm going to go,

28:14

what did he say? Can we level this

28:17

up or something? Can we high level this?

28:19

What did he say? Can we up level

28:21

it? That's interesting. I say that at Chili's,

28:23

I go, can we up level this? For

28:25

a minute? Yes, $199 extra if you want

28:27

that. If you want the extra jalapenos, Tim.

28:29

So what's going on? Harvard, are we selling

28:31

that to China? I'm for that. Yes. Well,

28:33

there's been a Donny book, if you will,

28:36

Tim. Yeah. In between Trump and Harvard. too

28:38

smart to buy Harvard. They know

28:40

it's a scam. That's a good point.

28:42

Here we go. I just spoke like

28:44

a true Stanford guy. On March 31st,

28:46

three federal agencies announced they were reviewing

28:48

$9 billion, $9 billion in

28:50

multi -year federal grants and $256 million

28:52

dollars in contracts. I went to

28:54

Harvard, three agencies, Education Health, and

28:57

the GSA. This past

28:59

Friday, April 11th, the group sent a

29:01

letter to Harvard's president and the

29:03

head of Harvard Corporation, laid out a

29:05

series of changes. The White House

29:07

is demanding merit -based hiring and admissions

29:09

staff, admissions students, all that good stuff.

29:12

Cancel all your DEI programs.

29:14

No more die. reform international

29:16

admissions. No more admitting students

29:18

that are, quote, hostile

29:20

to American values, increase

29:22

the different viewpoints on diversity

29:24

across all departments and

29:26

abolish admission practices that served

29:28

as an ideological litmus

29:31

test. Harvard's president, Alan Garber,

29:33

said he would not

29:35

comply. Later that day, the

29:37

White House responded by freezing 2 .2 billion in

29:39

grants, 60 million in contracts. They

29:41

now want to take away

29:43

the White House. the tax -exempt

29:45

status of Harvard, which would

29:47

be absolutely insane. It's

29:49

happened actually once before in

29:52

1970s. Bob Jones University in

29:54

South Carolina was doing outwardly

29:56

racist stuff. And the

29:58

IRS, according to the CNN, is

30:00

looking into this. Your thoughts, Shema.

30:05

Well, it's more than the IRS is

30:07

looking into it. They're thinking of revoking

30:09

their tax -exempt status. Yeah. How

30:11

about I tee this up slightly differently?

30:13

Tim, you brought up something that I think

30:15

is really important, which is what is

30:17

the American dream for all these people that

30:19

are cascading between half jobs and half

30:22

measures? That's right. That's

30:24

a really important question. And

30:26

right now, if you

30:28

look at the top of

30:30

the educational hierarchy, Harvard,

30:33

what have we seen over the last few

30:35

years? They are at the absolute bottom

30:37

of the rankings with respect to free speech.

30:39

They have lost all of these cases

30:41

all the way up to the Supreme Court

30:43

about how they do admissions. Harvard

30:46

doesn't just have a front door. It's got

30:48

a bunch of side doors, got a bunch of

30:50

back doors, and they discriminate. And

30:52

what is the opposite of discrimination?

30:54

It's meritocracy. And I think

30:56

with 20 plus years of

30:58

discrimination, what Harvard did was made

31:00

it fashionable for other schools to

31:03

discriminate. And if you

31:05

compound that for 20 years, It

31:07

doesn't just touch the universities, it starts

31:09

to touch the high schools and the

31:11

middle schools. Where we live at the

31:13

beginning of COVID, we had

31:15

some morons at the board of education

31:17

decide to take away AP calculus and

31:19

AP math because it made people feel

31:21

bad. It's absolutely

31:23

ridiculous. And then we

31:26

pound these kids with ADHD pills.

31:29

And what happens is what you

31:31

described him. So. What

31:33

is the point of fixing Harvard? It's

31:35

really important because the opposite of

31:37

what they do, what they do is

31:39

discriminate, is a meritocracy.

31:41

And we need to make that

31:43

fashionable again. And the biggest reason

31:45

goes back to, again, I'll just

31:47

go back to the chip conversation. The

31:50

Chinese are so well organized. If

31:52

you look at the Chinese and the

31:54

Indians together, those are 2 .5 billion

31:56

people swimming in a meritocratic soup from

31:58

the day they're born. That's the only

32:00

way they climb out. and

32:03

it's eat or be eaten. And

32:05

then when they graduate from an education

32:07

system that is purely meritocratic, you know

32:09

what they do? They enter a workforce

32:11

that's also meritocratic. So it's compounded

32:14

into their psyche that you just have to

32:16

perform. Whereas what we do is

32:18

we do all of these fake things that make

32:20

people feel really bad about themselves. They look at

32:22

other people that think that shouldn't deserve to be

32:24

in places, get places. And

32:26

so we have to turn that tide.

32:28

And so whatever it takes, the most

32:30

severe and extreme measures must be undertaken

32:32

to fix this. That's my point

32:34

of view. Tim, your

32:37

thoughts on Trump wanting to

32:39

take away the nonprofit stance of

32:41

Harvey. I

32:43

went to one of these encampments during

32:45

the protests. I wanted to see it

32:47

for myself to see what was going

32:49

on. There

32:51

was a lot of, you'd see

32:54

a non -binary Asian dressed up like

32:56

a Hamas, and I think that's fun.

32:59

I think it's college. So I

33:01

think that people are going to

33:03

express views that are often, you

33:05

know, probably anti -American. I don't think

33:07

we can, you can't

33:09

shield yourself from that. I don't like

33:11

deporting people that are, you know,

33:13

critical of Israel, for example, unless they've

33:15

committed crimes and you can provide,

33:18

they're providing material support, you know, if

33:20

you can prove they're providing. Do

33:22

process. Do process. Well, you need to

33:24

provide, you know, if they're providing

33:26

material support, to Hamas or something like

33:28

that, that's a different story. But

33:30

if here on a legal resident visa,

33:32

they should be allowed the space

33:34

to express themselves as any other American

33:36

citizen would. Now, that being said, it

33:39

is impossible to look at higher education in

33:41

America right now and not be embarrassed. Truly,

33:44

truly, the word is embarrassment.

33:47

These should be the shining example

33:49

of, as Shamath was saying,

33:51

institutions that prepare people for

33:53

the real world. But what

33:55

they really are, they've all

33:57

been captured in this quasi

33:59

religious cult of insanity, where

34:01

people are elevating different types

34:03

of characteristics outside of intelligence

34:05

and merit as the most

34:07

important things to be considered

34:09

for admission, you know, to

34:12

be given academic achievements and things

34:14

like this. It's kind of embarrassing. And

34:16

I think if these institutions are going

34:18

to follow that path, they're going

34:20

to have to live and die on

34:22

their own. They're not going to be

34:24

able to be taxpayer subsidized and funded.

34:26

They have massive endowments from multi -billionaires

34:28

whose families all go, but like

34:30

Jamal said, they do engage in discrimination. And

34:33

frankly, you know, again, I'm not

34:35

for drawing ideological lines and I'm a

34:38

big free speech guy, but I

34:40

do think that you don't find much

34:42

ideological diversity on any of those

34:44

campuses, certainly not in the faculties at

34:46

all. And it doesn't prepare anybody

34:48

for a world and all the politics

34:51

are very aesthetic. I mean,

34:53

all these people are out there,

34:55

you know, showing off, exhibiting their

34:57

virtue. But at the end of

34:59

the day, they're still getting a very cushy

35:01

internship and a nice job. And,

35:03

you know, they're going to summer and Martha's Vineyard.

35:06

You know, for example, I

35:08

was lucky enough to go to the

35:10

Kennedy compound this summer. I went sailing with

35:12

their family and they're really great kids.

35:14

A lot of the kids there were... the

35:16

figure of the rock. Where are they?

35:18

No, they're on, you know, Hannes, whatever, the

35:20

famous thing. Yes. And I went there

35:22

and a lot of their young, their young

35:24

kids are of case kids are young.

35:26

They went to Harvard and a lot of

35:28

these Harvard kids are all good kids.

35:31

But you know, some of them are very

35:33

interesting, right? Cause they, they said to

35:35

me, they said, you own a house in

35:37

the Hamptons. I said, yeah, they go,

35:39

do you ever go out there in the

35:41

winter? I go, yeah, sometimes I do.

35:43

It's quiet and nice. You can write, you

35:45

can work on stuff. They go, yeah,

35:47

well, you know, they go, it's kind of

35:49

depressing to come to the Cape in

35:51

the winter. Cause all these people here are

35:53

on drugs. And it's like, yeah, cause

35:55

you shipped their jobs away. So it's just,

35:57

it's stunning. And these are Harvard kids.

35:59

They're very smart kids. But you have these

36:01

chasms where you would think it would

36:04

be completely obvious to people at this amazing

36:06

academic institution that, yeah, of course, the

36:08

people are on drugs. They're embracing pathological behavior.

36:10

They don't have a future. But these

36:12

schools have become these really insular bubbles where

36:14

these people have these really well -meaning aesthetic

36:16

politics, which says, we don't care about

36:18

your economic circumstances. Here's a trans Batman. And

36:20

I don't think that that that seems

36:22

to be the ethos of higher education in

36:24

America right now and it's it's it's

36:26

very hypocritical and I think it's why the

36:28

Democratic Party no longer connects because they're

36:30

too closely associated with like that type of

36:32

you know that type of a lead

36:34

I identity Politics yeah freeberg what sure that

36:36

should the IRS revoke or threaten to

36:39

revoke here? their nonprofit

36:41

status. Is that a

36:43

fair technique here because

36:45

they won't acquiesce and

36:47

do exactly as instructed? And

36:50

what do you think is going to happen here?

36:52

Will this possibly result in them losing their IRS status?

36:57

Harvard's endowment is

36:59

$53 .2 billion.

37:02

You may make

37:04

7 % return. They're

37:06

making $4 billion a year

37:08

in income generated. from those

37:11

investments in that endowment. I

37:13

think there's a couple of

37:15

two really important questions. One is,

37:17

should the role of the

37:19

federal government be to give out

37:21

money equally to institutions? Or

37:24

should the role be to give money to the

37:26

institutions that are going to provide the highest ROI for

37:28

America? Or is the goal

37:30

to redistribute wealth? And

37:32

is that the point of

37:34

federal spending and federal

37:36

expenditures? So, you know, you

37:38

could kind of think about Harvard,

37:40

MIT, and a few other institutions

37:43

that have truly great research institutions

37:45

embedded within them as being the

37:47

best ROI for America from a

37:49

grant perspective when you're giving out

37:51

research grants. That's the best

37:53

place because it just like any other

37:55

great technology company, it accumulates capital

37:57

because it accumulates talent. And that has

37:59

a network effect. And now you've

38:01

got a few institutions that have a

38:03

monopoly on high quality talent. And

38:05

as a result, it's the best ROI

38:07

for America. Is that what

38:09

the federal government is investing in? Or

38:12

should the federal government be trying

38:14

to support universities all over the place

38:16

that are more in need, particularly

38:18

a university that has 53 billion of

38:20

capital? Do they really need the

38:22

federal funds? So then the next question

38:24

I think is like, what is

38:26

the limit on the government's ability to

38:28

influence whether or not an institution

38:30

gets their capital? Is it statutory? Is

38:32

it mandated by law? Or

38:34

does it become politically motivated,

38:36

socially motivated, et cetera? Because

38:38

in other parts of how we're seeing

38:40

decisions being made, we're saying Chevron doctrine

38:42

was thrown out. And when Chevron doctrine

38:44

gets thrown out, we can't

38:47

rely on the regulatory scrutiny of the administrators

38:49

of the capital. We have to rely

38:51

on the law. And is there a law

38:53

that they're relying on? And I think

38:55

that's the key question is to have the

38:57

administration point to the laws that they

38:59

believe are being violated to kind of make,

39:01

I would say, a strongly defensible argument

39:03

about why they would withhold the capital to

39:05

make sure that they're compliant with the

39:08

law and whatnot and have it not be

39:10

kind of, you know, just we would

39:12

prefer to see you do things differently because

39:14

we think it's socially better. So I

39:16

think those are kind of the two key

39:18

points, whether or not these institutions deserve

39:20

nonprofit status. I don't know why an

39:22

institution that has 53 billion a capital and

39:24

is making probably four or five billion a year.

39:27

shouldn't pay taxes on that income. That

39:30

income is being used in a variety

39:32

of ways to build nice buildings. And

39:34

there's IP that's held by these institutions

39:37

that IP is used to start startups.

39:39

They get equity in the startups. They

39:41

have income streams on their IP. I

39:43

mean, they really do operate like technology

39:45

development centers. So, you

39:47

know, what is the original kind of reason for

39:49

saying that they should be tax exempt? The

39:51

majority of the capital is not being used to

39:53

educate students. The majority of the capital is

39:55

being used to reinvest to make new capital. So

39:58

your position on

40:01

Harvard losing its tax

40:03

exempt status potentially because they will

40:05

not stop their DEI programs or they want

40:07

to, I guess, better stated would be that

40:09

they want to make their own decisions about

40:11

this and not have the federal government make

40:13

this decision. Let's get to the

40:15

nitty gritty of the legal issue here.

40:17

In 1983, there was a case called

40:19

Bob Jones University versus the IRS in

40:21

which the IRS challenged the tax exempt

40:23

status of Bob Jones University because Bob

40:26

Jones had this bizarre

40:28

and reprehensible policy banning interracial

40:31

dating on campus and interracial

40:34

marriage based on a strange

40:36

interpretation of scripture. At least that's what they

40:38

said it was. In any event, Bob

40:41

Jones lost that case and they lost their tax

40:43

exempt status. As far as I know, they

40:45

kept the policy and they continue to operate as

40:47

a private university. But the

40:49

Supreme Court found that

40:51

if you enshrine a racially

40:53

discriminatory policy, in

40:56

violation of the civil rights laws and you

40:58

cannot get tax against status. So that

41:00

was the precedent. Fast forward

41:02

to 2023, we have the

41:04

case students for fair admissions versus Harvard. This

41:06

is the Supreme Court case a few years

41:08

ago that said that affirmative

41:11

action policies that

41:13

use race as a

41:15

factor in admissions are a

41:17

violation of the 14th Amendment's

41:19

protection against racial discrimination. So

41:22

Harvard lost that case. They were

41:24

found to be racially discriminating in

41:26

admissions. Now, what Harvard did

41:28

in the wake of that is

41:30

that they claimed that they

41:32

removed access to information about

41:34

an applicant's race from the

41:36

admissions process so that the

41:39

admissions readers don't know what race of

41:41

student is. This is their claim. But

41:43

at the same time that they did

41:45

that, they updated their application, replacing

41:48

the long form essay that all of

41:50

us filled out decades ago we went

41:52

to school with five shorter questions asking

41:55

how applicants will contribute to a diverse

41:57

student body. It's suspiciously similar

41:59

to these DEI statements where prospective

42:01

professors who are applying for jobs

42:03

at these universities get asked, you

42:06

know, how will you contribute to diversity on

42:08

campus, things like this? And it's

42:10

used as a way to discriminate

42:12

against conservatives or people who just think

42:14

that race or diversity should not

42:16

be a factor in teaching on campus.

42:18

Anyone who answers that question, I

42:20

believe in judging people based on the

42:23

content of their character, not the

42:25

color of their skin, they're going to

42:27

get weeded out, right? I mean,

42:29

or someone who says, well, I'm going

42:31

to contribute to diversity on campus

42:33

by contributing intellectual diversity. Those are the

42:35

types of applicants who get weeded

42:37

out by these DEI statements. And we

42:39

see that in another part of

42:41

what the government is claiming is that

42:44

Harvard is engaged in viewpoint discrimination

42:46

against conservatives. And you can see this

42:48

in polling of the Harvard faculty.

42:50

More than 80 % of surveyed Harvard

42:52

faculty identify as liberal. So my point

42:54

is this, these

42:56

DEI statements have been used in

42:58

faculty hiring to discriminate on the

43:01

base of viewpoint and to use

43:03

race as a factor in hiring. I

43:05

think in a similar way, they've

43:07

now updated their admission application to

43:09

make all the essays about race.

43:12

So I think this idea that

43:14

they're not playing a game here

43:16

and they're not trying to engineer

43:18

the student class around race, it's

43:20

hard to believe, right? I mean,

43:22

these are people who have not

43:24

changed their ideology. They believe what

43:26

they were doing before that 2023

43:28

case was trying to engineer the

43:30

percentages of each student class to

43:32

match the percentages of each race

43:34

in the American population, right? And

43:36

these are people who are doctrinaire

43:38

about that ideology. So the

43:40

idea that they're not still doing it, I

43:42

think, is hard to believe. Now,

43:45

course, of course. So we all know

43:47

what they're doing. And The alternative

43:49

to the administration saying just get rid

43:51

of the is that every year

43:53

to have new litigation. Where will

43:55

be some whistleblower and it'll come out

43:57

that harvard still engaging a racial discrimination.

44:00

And then you know harvard will be found

44:02

guilty like they were in that twenty twenty

44:04

three case and they'll change their policy. And

44:06

the manipulated and play some new game will

44:08

be a new court case will keep going

44:10

back and forth with them or. We

44:12

can just say stop it right

44:15

now stop the non sense actually. abide

44:17

by both the letter and spirit of

44:19

the Supreme Court decision students for fair

44:21

admissions versus Harvard and stop engaging in

44:24

racial discrimination. And this is why I

44:26

think the administration is correct here in

44:28

pressing Harvard on this. Now look, if

44:30

Harvard wants to keep playing these games,

44:32

they can. No one is saying that

44:34

they have to get rid of DEI.

44:36

They just have to give up their

44:39

federal funding the way that Bob Jones

44:41

University did. But the problem is that

44:43

Harvard wants to have his cake and

44:45

eat it too. Right? They want to

44:47

basically keep engaging in racial discrimination through

44:49

these DEI policies, but they want federal

44:51

funding and you can't have both. Do

44:54

you think that these

44:56

universities or universities in

44:58

general that receive federal

45:00

funding have become more

45:02

ideologically, call it liberal,

45:05

I would call it a

45:07

little bit more kind of socialist

45:09

oriented because they're dependent on

45:11

federal funding? Do you see what

45:13

I'm saying? Like, is it the case that

45:15

this Ideology accrues over

45:17

time when you are much more

45:19

dependent on the government. You

45:21

mean there's no market feedback that keeps

45:23

you in check? There's no

45:25

private market. There's nothing that

45:27

ultimately translates into a system

45:30

where you're necessarily needing to

45:32

be competitive for capital, competitive

45:34

for talent, like the accumulation of federal

45:36

dollars over time. makes you say I deserve

45:39

federal dollars and the people that think

45:41

that you deserve federal dollars. You're making a

45:43

really good point and I think you

45:45

could be right. Nick, can you please throw

45:47

up the chart that I sent you,

45:49

which is the amount of research between China

45:51

and America? Okay, first look at this.

45:54

So again, you make these plans

45:56

and you're like, where are we

45:58

going to put the money? Okay,

46:00

China says, guys, we are going

46:02

to learn how to catch up

46:04

to America in terms of spending

46:06

on science. This is gross domestic

46:08

expenditures on science. And what you

46:10

see is China from basically nothing

46:12

in 2001 is now neck and

46:14

neck with the United States spending

46:16

half a trillion dollars a year

46:18

on core fundamental science research. So

46:20

what happens as a byproduct of

46:23

that? Okay, so you spend more

46:25

on the way in. So

46:27

China is listening to the market

46:29

feedback. Freeberg, let's go and explore

46:31

this idea that there is no

46:33

market feedback in America. What are

46:35

the long run implications and you

46:38

see it on this chart, which

46:40

is this is a simple chart

46:42

that says what percentage of all

46:44

of the foundational research Comes from

46:46

the United States versus comes from

46:48

China and what's crazy about this

46:51

chart is right around 2019 China

46:53

past the United States This chart

46:55

by the way only measures research

46:57

that is published in English Okay,

47:00

so if you added in

47:02

the research that China actually publishes

47:04

in Chinese, they would have

47:06

run away with this a decade

47:08

earlier. So then you

47:10

think about, okay, well, what is

47:12

the implication of this? Well, the implication

47:14

is obvious. These guys are

47:16

inventing things. We're playing catch -up. Meanwhile, we're

47:18

bumbling around talking about pronouns. We can't get

47:20

our act together. This is why we

47:22

need to be decisive. What is important here?

47:24

So for NIH grants, This was published

47:26

by the NIH, by the way, a few

47:29

weeks ago on their Twitter account. So

47:31

this is an image they put out. And

47:34

on Feb 15, they're about the

47:36

NIH said, any grants we give to

47:38

universities now. So today, if you're a

47:40

researcher, you're a scientist at a university

47:42

like Harvard, I don't know if

47:44

people realize this. The way you get funding

47:46

for your lab is you will apply for a

47:48

grant. Someone has to give you that capital

47:51

to run your lab. And many

47:53

grants come from the NIH. So

47:55

they go to the NIH, they file

47:57

for a grant. If the grant gets

47:59

approved, they get $3 million, let's say.

48:02

But what happens is that at

48:04

the institution that they run

48:06

that lab at, that institution can

48:08

now bill the government for

48:10

some negotiated percentage of the grant

48:12

amount to cover administrative overhead. So

48:14

at Harvard, you know what the administrative

48:17

overhead was up until Fed 15th? 69%.

48:21

You're saying $69 of every

48:23

hundred go to administration. It's

48:26

an incremental $31. Yeah.

48:28

Well, it's actually an incremental $69.

48:30

So the way it works is on

48:32

top. The lab gets a hundred

48:34

and then Harvard bills the government $69.

48:37

That's insane. That's insane. And

48:39

this is true. And the average is

48:41

around 30 % today across universities and

48:43

other institutions. So there's also this very

48:45

fundamental question that's being asked in science

48:47

right now. which is our university is

48:49

even the right place to be doing

48:51

fundamental scientific research. In the United States,

48:53

there are different models. Most of our

48:55

research is done either at a private

48:57

company, which is a small amount of

48:59

research. And remember, I've

49:01

talked about this a lot. The

49:03

big companies that have a market that's

49:05

telling them you have to have

49:08

a positive return on invested capital, that

49:10

have the scale to invest, have

49:12

the most incredible returns for America, like

49:14

Google. that put out the transformer

49:16

model that launched everything that we see today and

49:18

invested in Waymo for many years and drove

49:20

the self -driving car revolution and all the work

49:23

that was going on at Bell Labs up until

49:25

we said Bell Labs and Monopoly, we broke

49:27

them apart and they got destroyed. And

49:29

so we largely aim to destroy large

49:31

private research institutions in this country because

49:33

we claim that they're monopolistic because of

49:35

the way they source capital, which is

49:37

through activities in the marketplace. So

49:39

the question today that's being asked,

49:41

is should we be doing fundamental

49:43

scientific research at universities given that

49:45

over time, the administrative overhead has

49:47

grown. And they're basically creating administrative

49:49

workloads and employing people without necessarily

49:51

having a market incentive. Can I

49:54

tell you a crazy story? This

49:56

is a story I've never told,

49:58

but a friend of mine is

50:00

an incredibly well -respected banker on

50:02

Wall Street, very senior guy, works

50:04

at one of the big mainline

50:06

banks. And a few

50:08

years ago, this is about 18 months ago, two years

50:10

ago, he had always wanted

50:12

to work in government and they

50:14

tried to get him to join the

50:16

Federal Reserve and it was for

50:18

a role that was very specific and

50:21

narrow. It was to manage a

50:23

very specific part of the interest rate

50:25

mortgage market. It's a really important

50:27

role. It's a little bit in the

50:29

weeds, but it was like his

50:31

dream job. He did his PhD thesis

50:34

on it the whole nine yards,

50:36

whatever kind of thing. So

50:38

he goes through these interviews

50:40

and He sits with Jerome Powell, goes

50:43

through that interview, sits with, I

50:45

think, Leo Brainard, you know, everybody. And

50:48

it was time for the final interview.

50:51

And right before, the person that was

50:53

his kind of like shepherd says

50:55

to him, you really need to play

50:57

up your Indianness, because what we

51:00

really want is somebody who can help

51:02

us tell a diverse story. He

51:04

goes, well, My diversity is that I

51:06

know this market better than literally

51:08

anyone else in the world. Like nobody

51:10

knows this. I know it. I've

51:12

studied it since my PhD. And

51:15

he was so offended. He was like,

51:17

you know what? I'm not going to

51:19

go through with this. And we lost

51:21

them. We meaning the American taxpayer who

51:23

supports all this. If you think of

51:25

that example in all of the different

51:27

places where we have not been hiring

51:29

the right people, you

51:31

get this slowdown in innovation,

51:33

you get a slowdown in research,

51:35

you get a slowdown in

51:37

wealth functioning organizations and institutions, and

51:40

it's like a slow malaise. So

51:42

how do you stop the rot? You

51:44

have to stop it at the top, and

51:47

you have to do something that is

51:49

meaningful. And if

51:51

it requires us

51:53

to at least

51:55

threaten Harvard, and by

51:57

the way, look, let's be honest, it's

51:59

called Harvard Corporation for a reason. Right,

52:01

it's run like a corporation. It is

52:03

an asset manager that may happen to

52:05

have some educational things that they do

52:07

on the side which Increasingly are not

52:09

what we need it to do and

52:11

more importantly It doesn't set the vanguard

52:13

for how everybody wants to copy and

52:15

everybody used to want to copy Harvard

52:17

and now what they're copying are not

52:19

the things that help us so we

52:21

have to find a way of Waking

52:23

them up and saying guys you have

52:26

a responsibility for America And

52:28

maybe this is what it takes. And I hope

52:30

they take the medicine and listen. Well, the Coulson

52:33

brothers told us on a previous episode, they were

52:35

just funding researchers and letting them pick their own

52:37

research to a certain extent. Tim. How

52:39

would you play up your Indianness

52:41

with Jerome Powell? The idea

52:43

of that is the best thing I've

52:45

heard all week. I've asked him. He

52:48

was told to play up his Indianness.

52:50

And he was like, well, what does

52:52

that mean, my Indianness? And they were

52:54

like, well, you know. Talk about your

52:56

love of Indian dance and Indian food.

52:58

And he was like, are you, are

53:00

you, are you kidding me? Like is,

53:02

is this a serious conversation? Jerome Powell

53:04

sitting there and go, we were on

53:07

defense about you. But you showed up

53:09

with this butter chicken. The chicken makni,

53:11

I was gonna bring it up. You

53:13

came in here with Saag Paneer, and

53:15

now we're a sitar. He starts playing

53:17

the sitar in the... And it's like,

53:19

what are you doing? You char masala?

53:21

Who's that guy showing up at a

53:24

rickshaw? It's the chairman of the mortgage

53:26

market. It's absolutely worked out. Hey,

53:28

Tim, if you were in charge of

53:30

this, because we do have some ends with

53:32

the administration, maybe you should be directing

53:34

some of this research. What would me? If

53:36

I wanted to study anything at Harvard,

53:38

it would be Brigitte Macron's gender. But I

53:40

think we do have to focus on

53:42

disease to an extent. But here's

53:44

what I would say to add to

53:46

that conversation. I would say that these

53:48

schools exist for a multitude of reasons.

53:51

But one of them is to create

53:53

a consensus among the wealthiest and obviously

53:55

people that are expected to be the

53:57

most powerful in society and to

53:59

create a consensus about the values that

54:01

are important to America at any

54:03

given time. And I think the

54:05

question should be, why are

54:07

these values so important

54:10

and to whom? I

54:12

don't think this is altruism

54:14

and it's about helping the

54:16

working class or helping minorities

54:18

or helping people get more

54:20

economic justice. It actually

54:23

seems to me quite

54:25

a transparent attempt for certain

54:27

people to keep positions

54:29

of power and certain structures

54:31

to stay in place

54:33

while offering people this idea

54:35

that there's a lot

54:37

of change because there's a

54:39

few ceremonial optical choices

54:41

made where we're putting in

54:43

a female CEO of

54:45

color or someone who's Indian

54:48

but the internal structure

54:50

stays the same. And

54:52

if you just look at a school

54:54

like Harvard and you go, oh, yeah,

54:56

socialist in some respects, but in some

54:58

respects, actually, you know,

55:00

if you challenge the Ukraine war,

55:02

if you challenge aspects of the

55:04

American empire, if you challenge certain,

55:07

look at all the wars, all

55:09

of our wars are being sold

55:11

with social justice. A lot of

55:13

our wars are being sold because, you

55:15

know, if we don't see a national

55:17

security interest in it, we're told that

55:19

Well, people in that country are not

55:21

being treated well. That country has values

55:23

that we don't have in the West.

55:25

And that may be true. But in

55:27

many cases, it's not worth going to

55:29

war over. And most Americans would say

55:31

that. So who exactly

55:33

is benefiting from these

55:36

programs and these values

55:38

being instituted? It isn't

55:40

low income people in

55:42

the inner city. It

55:44

seems to be kind of

55:47

A lot of it's the

55:49

opposite of inclusion. It's the

55:51

opposite of inclusion. the opposite

55:53

of inclusion. What has happened?

55:56

It's the establishment trying to

55:58

preserve itself by shutting out

56:00

certain ideas and certain people

56:02

and, you know, giving very

56:04

ceremonial nods to, you know,

56:07

play up your Indianness, play

56:09

up this, play up that.

56:12

But, you know, it's like when the

56:14

CIA goes and she goes, I'm

56:16

the first female drone pilot. And

56:18

a lot of Americans are

56:20

going, what exactly is our national

56:22

security interest in a drone

56:24

strike in whatever country and do

56:26

we need to be doing

56:28

this? And should the money be

56:30

better spent somewhere else? But

56:32

instead of having that conversation, it's

56:34

always ends up being hijacked.

56:36

So this DEI to me just

56:38

seems like a way for

56:40

a lot of the same establishment

56:42

people to keep their power

56:44

and influence by offering these very

56:46

optical advancements to people that

56:48

May you know pay lip service

56:50

to certain ideas, but when

56:52

it comes down to it, they're

56:54

very loyal to the same

56:56

Power factions that you know have

56:58

always kind of driven the

57:00

narratives in our country completely agreeing

57:02

what happened during comedy to

57:04

you Tim and and your cohort

57:06

during that like peak DEI

57:09

peak cancellation It felt like the

57:11

Overture window was closing pretty

57:13

harshly on you guys. There's a lot

57:15

of attempted cancellations of comedians, people trying

57:17

to secretly record you. You got those

57:19

yonder, I don't know what those are

57:21

called, those bags that you put the

57:23

phones in. What was that moment

57:25

in time like? told by countless executives

57:27

to play up my Indianness, and I tried.

57:30

You tried. But it was just in bad

57:32

taste. Yes. It was in terrible

57:34

taste when I came in and I tried to

57:36

be Indian, and it just wasn't

57:38

good. No, I think here's what it was.

57:40

I started, you know, having more of a career

57:43

in let's say 2016, 2017, 2018, and then

57:45

we were kind of on this path where you'd

57:47

go have a meeting in Los Angeles with

57:49

people about doing a show or whatever, and they

57:51

would start, all of these words and verbiage

57:53

would creep in. They go, we're really interested in

57:55

marginalized voices, elevating voices that

57:57

haven't been heard. We're interested in

58:00

empowering, and these are LA executives, they're

58:02

monsters, they care nothing. about anything

58:04

and that's where they're good at their

58:06

job, right? The only reason you

58:08

can be good at your job as

58:10

an executive in the entertainment business

58:12

is to really not look at human

58:15

beings as humans. You have to

58:17

look at them as objects. That's

58:19

what you do. Manipulate pawns on the chessboard.

58:21

It's what it is. You know what I

58:23

mean? If I called my agent today and

58:25

said I'm really tired, doing everything I'm doing,

58:27

he'd say, have you tried drugs? Like, they...

58:29

Right, this would be a... I was wondering

58:31

about that because you have such high energy.

58:33

I don't know why you're not embracing the

58:35

cocaine speed. I don't mean it. I don't

58:37

mean it. Yeah, but if I do, and

58:39

the way, if I do, they'll provide it

58:41

to me. Here's the deal. The way that

58:43

town works is you have a bunch of

58:45

people that believe in nothing and they can't.

58:48

They can't and be effective. They have to

58:50

go whichever way the wind is blowing. So

58:52

when you have these people pulling up in

58:54

portions, with their houses

58:56

in Malibu and they then

58:58

have a sudden interest

59:00

in empowering people. These people

59:02

were throwing women off

59:05

into the Santa Monica Canyon

59:07

for years. So it

59:09

was this weird time where

59:11

you had the worst people in

59:13

the world trying to convince

59:15

you that they had an interest

59:17

in marginalized voices because they

59:19

thought there was money there. Well,

59:21

guess what? It turns out

59:23

Americans don't really like to be

59:25

patronized and they were never

59:27

making TV that minorities wanted to

59:29

watch or making TV that

59:31

guilty white liberals wanted to watch

59:33

and it didn't make any

59:35

money. Nobody really liked it. A

59:37

lot of it kind of

59:39

faded away. And as soon as

59:41

it stopped being profitable, all

59:43

the executives in Hollywood that supposedly

59:45

cared so much about the

59:47

marginalized voices rediscovered the profit motive.

59:49

They rediscovered the idea that

59:51

they had to make entertaining stuff.

59:53

They rediscovered viewership. They rediscovered

59:55

numbers. They rediscovered all these business

59:57

fundamentals that they had ignored

59:59

because they thought there was going

1:00:01

to be a pot of

1:00:03

gold at the end of all

1:00:05

this elevating and empowering. But

1:00:07

there wasn't because it was rejected

1:00:09

largely by people. They didn't

1:00:11

want to watch it. They were

1:00:13

canceling all of you guys.

1:00:15

They were canceling. Well,

1:00:18

they were trying. They were

1:00:20

trying to. to. They were trying, didn't

1:00:22

work because people at the end of

1:00:24

the day realized that people are flawed,

1:00:26

fallible, and human. And that's what makes

1:00:28

them entertaining. You don't want a perfect

1:00:30

person doing anything because that person is

1:00:33

not going to be terribly interesting. You

1:00:35

want someone who has flaws and has

1:00:37

problems, obviously, within reason. You

1:00:39

know, so I think that. Tim,

1:00:41

can I ask you a

1:00:43

question? Let's say let's say that

1:00:45

you are I support Harvey

1:00:47

Weinstein. Go on. I'm sorry. I

1:00:49

didn't know if that was

1:00:51

No, let's say that you are

1:00:53

in charge of education in

1:00:55

America. Yes What would you do?

1:00:57

Where would you start? What

1:00:59

would you if I was in

1:01:01

charge of education America number

1:01:03

one? I would I would try

1:01:05

to Assert the idea that

1:01:07

Higher education itself needs to be

1:01:09

for a purpose and

1:01:11

that there needs to be more

1:01:13

of a purpose driven from

1:01:15

middle school through high school, we

1:01:17

need to start getting kids

1:01:19

to think rationally about their skill

1:01:21

set and their ability. And

1:01:24

I don't think it's a

1:01:26

good idea for these kids to

1:01:28

take out hundreds of thousands

1:01:30

of dollars worth of loans to

1:01:32

go away for four years,

1:01:35

not have a solid plan and

1:01:37

not execute and then graduate

1:01:39

mired in debt without

1:01:41

really a pathway to paying any of

1:01:43

it back and spending their 20s and

1:01:45

maybe a good part of their 30s

1:01:47

incapable of owning a home, incapable of

1:01:49

owning anything with no real investments. So

1:01:51

I think this idea that like you

1:01:53

should follow your dream, which is this

1:01:55

toxic American idea that I don't subscribe

1:01:57

to. I think people have nature as

1:01:59

they have skillsets and they actually have

1:02:01

to do something within the realm of

1:02:03

that and it requires being honest with children,

1:02:06

which no one wants to do. And

1:02:09

I would try to re -engineer education

1:02:11

to be a more practical place

1:02:13

where you would apply some of the

1:02:15

skills that you actually had. I'm

1:02:18

not saying people shouldn't be able to

1:02:20

experiment or have freedom, but I

1:02:22

do think that we've told a lie

1:02:24

to people, which is that they

1:02:26

can be anything they want to be

1:02:28

and do anything they want to

1:02:30

do. And by the way, and here's

1:02:32

a bunch of loans to do

1:02:35

it. Here's hundreds of thousands of dollars

1:02:37

worth of debt. So now you

1:02:39

can go into debt. without any plan

1:02:41

or any logical sense of what

1:02:43

you want to do. I think we

1:02:45

should start putting people into a

1:02:47

more realistic mindset in high school about

1:02:49

what needs to happen. Otherwise, they're

1:02:52

taken advantage of and abused by these

1:02:54

systems of higher education where they

1:02:56

graduate mired in debt and without any

1:02:58

type of standing in society. Oh,

1:03:01

my God. I want to add

1:03:03

Jamal. Go ahead, Freya Bergen. Then

1:03:05

I got a breaking news story.

1:03:07

I want to just address this

1:03:09

because I think it's, there's a

1:03:12

moment here that I think will

1:03:14

define a very different future for

1:03:16

education, which is kind of a

1:03:18

movement away from the current model

1:03:20

of a school. AI is

1:03:23

such a profound tool. The

1:03:25

ability for AI to get to

1:03:27

know your personality and just like teach

1:03:29

my kids the way they want

1:03:31

to be taught through conversation, through engagement,

1:03:33

through dialogue. knowing that some

1:03:35

kids want to ask questions and some kids

1:03:37

want to just be told stuff. Some kids

1:03:39

work at one pace, other kids work at

1:03:41

another pace. And I know this idea of

1:03:43

personalized education using computing has been around now

1:03:45

for decades. But we really are

1:03:47

in this moment where the idea of

1:03:50

spending, you know, your first 18 years

1:03:52

of life in a classroom where you're

1:03:54

being told stuff that is quote the

1:03:56

truth versus learning how to engage with

1:03:58

the world, ask questions, your

1:04:00

world. I find and identify things that are

1:04:02

interesting to you. have it delivered to you

1:04:04

in a very personalized, meaningful, rich way that

1:04:06

also makes you excited about certain things and

1:04:08

helps usher you on to the next phase

1:04:11

of your life of what do you want

1:04:13

to do with this and get kids out

1:04:15

of this idea that you've got to go

1:04:17

get the degree in order to get the

1:04:19

job. And then I think that the workplace

1:04:21

will adjust to that. I forgot who it

1:04:23

is, whether it was Palantir or someone just

1:04:25

started doing a program where they're like skip

1:04:27

college, come and do your basically your apprenticeship

1:04:29

here. So instead of going to college, you'll,

1:04:32

you'll, it's paid, you'll continue your education

1:04:34

here. You'll work on projects,

1:04:36

you'll make money and you'll continue to

1:04:38

have your development be done while you're

1:04:40

learning a valuable skill. So I do

1:04:42

think like as AI kind of takes

1:04:44

over education, I do expect that the

1:04:46

workplace will change Tim and we will

1:04:48

start to see more of this integration

1:04:51

between education and workplace enabled by this

1:04:53

AI driven kind of, you know, development

1:04:55

system. Which is which is going to

1:04:57

be radically different than what we have

1:04:59

today you with this a item you

1:05:01

like a comedians to the game I

1:05:03

don't I don't with it. No, I'm

1:05:05

a little skeptical of the tech people

1:05:07

I talk about on my show of

1:05:09

course not you guys but the other

1:05:11

ones I Think it's great Palantir goes

1:05:13

skip college come get involved in advanced

1:05:15

weapons technology But

1:05:26

I like using my brain at the moment,

1:05:28

but if it starts to fail, I imagine it

1:05:30

will. I will use A. I know people

1:05:32

that do use A. I might produce or might

1:05:34

use A. I don't know. You probably won't

1:05:36

tell me. But I do think that...

1:05:38

But have you used it to learn Tim? Have you

1:05:40

used it? Have you ever done any of the chat apps

1:05:42

where you can talk to it and like, hey, you

1:05:44

want to learn it or get smart on something or get

1:05:46

caught up on something? You can literally just ask questions

1:05:48

and have a conversation with it. We did

1:05:50

it on the show. We had

1:05:52

an AI bot do a deliver

1:05:54

rant in the style of me.

1:05:56

It got pretty close, not good

1:05:58

enough yet, but it was pretty

1:06:00

close and pretty interesting to see

1:06:02

how advanced it is right now

1:06:05

and then how advanced it's going

1:06:07

to be. You know,

1:06:09

I worry a little bit about what

1:06:11

you're going to do with all of

1:06:13

these people. once AI starts

1:06:15

taking a lot of these

1:06:17

jobs. The

1:06:19

cashiers, the Uber drivers,

1:06:22

door dashers, all these jobs could go like

1:06:24

you said. Five years ago, I was

1:06:26

a tour guide on a double, not five

1:06:28

years ago, but seven or eight years

1:06:30

ago, I was a tour guide on a

1:06:32

double -decker bus in New York City while

1:06:34

I was learning how to be a

1:06:36

comedian and I was showing people the Empire

1:06:38

State Building and like all the 9 -11

1:06:40

Memorial, whatever, and these are the

1:06:42

types of jobs I was making $13

1:06:44

an hour and I was obviously, you

1:06:47

know, it wasn't well paid, it wasn't an

1:06:49

amazing job and it offered me the freedom to

1:06:51

get good at something else. But I was

1:06:53

taking a lot of risk to do it and

1:06:55

I tolerated that level of risk because I

1:06:57

believed what I was doing was the right thing,

1:06:59

the right course of action. But it's jobs

1:07:01

like that that allow some of the most interesting,

1:07:04

you know, like weird

1:07:06

lives that people should

1:07:08

be able to live If

1:07:10

they want to, I

1:07:13

don't think everybody may want

1:07:15

or need to have a full

1:07:17

-time job. There are people that

1:07:19

have retired and go, I'd

1:07:21

like to be a tour guide, or

1:07:23

I'd like to work at a museum a

1:07:25

few days a week. being

1:07:28

on the double -decker bus, you know, were you

1:07:30

able to put one -liners in there? I was

1:07:33

able to do all kinds of stuff like

1:07:35

that. To me, it's like those jobs, right? Yes.

1:07:37

Some of those, I don't think the entire

1:07:39

economy should be the gig economy, but I do

1:07:41

think some of those jobs are going to

1:07:43

be eliminated by AI or the jobs that allow

1:07:45

people to get good at other things while

1:07:47

they're doing them. So people that

1:07:49

are in entertainment and music and stuff like

1:07:51

that, we want them to be able

1:07:53

to support themselves while they enrich us culturally

1:07:56

in other ways. Crazy breaking

1:07:58

news story right now. Um, sorry, sacks. I

1:08:00

didn't mean to have this, uh, blindside you

1:08:02

here, but, uh, and I know, you know,

1:08:04

you were at the administration, you don't speak

1:08:06

for the administration necessarily on this issue, but,

1:08:08

uh, looks like the federal reserve has a

1:08:10

new chairman. It's just breaking news here. So

1:08:12

racist. Um, it says hot off

1:08:14

the mark. Trump is named Shamath as the federal

1:08:16

reserve. I think all of these fundraisers worked out

1:08:18

for you, but, uh, there is a note. They

1:08:20

asked Shamath to be more Sri Lankan. So if

1:08:22

you could, to the extent you could be more

1:08:25

Sri Lankan. Chumas, is he

1:08:27

really Sri Lankan? I read

1:08:29

a great book about the

1:08:31

Tamil Tigers many years ago.

1:08:33

Do you remember them? Yes,

1:08:35

they invented suicide bombing. They

1:08:37

did. Listen be proud be

1:08:39

proud of stuff That was

1:08:41

the ethnic minority that was

1:08:44

fighting for a homeland I

1:08:46

was part of the ethnic

1:08:48

majority You were you were

1:08:50

the one trying to avoid

1:08:52

the suicide mess. No, my

1:08:54

dad was the one that

1:08:56

spoke out against the war

1:08:58

That's why we we had

1:09:01

to skedaddle and claim refugee

1:09:03

potato potato. I support both

1:09:05

I'm the only person with

1:09:07

the moral courage to say

1:09:09

I support Israel and Hamas

1:09:11

and Russia and Ukraine. You

1:09:13

can just want to see a good game.

1:09:16

You can want to see a good game. You

1:09:18

don't have to take a side. overtime if

1:09:20

there's a lead change. You like a

1:09:22

lead change. It really depends in Beverly

1:09:24

Hills who I'm having lunch with and what

1:09:26

type of Middle Eastern they are because

1:09:28

I can go either way on that. And

1:09:30

I think it's important. You don't

1:09:32

want be too rigid in this economy.

1:09:34

You need to be able to move

1:09:36

into things And I will read the

1:09:39

audience. I see both sides. I've read

1:09:41

the Israel stuff and the Palestine stuff.

1:09:43

They're both right. So guess

1:09:45

what? That's right. So at the

1:09:47

end of the day, what want me to do?

1:09:49

for Timmy's career? Is that an approach you could

1:09:51

take? What's right for me? What's the easiest lunch?

1:09:53

What's the easiest afternoon for me? What,

1:09:55

you know, that path of resistance. That's

1:09:59

the move for me, always, all

1:10:01

the time, you know? Right. So, you

1:10:03

know? Absolutely. Absolutely. What

1:10:06

Putin did, was it right? No, but

1:10:08

do I like the idea of the

1:10:10

oligarch, the furs, the boats, the kind

1:10:12

of lifestyle? Yes, the kind

1:10:14

of tracks. Yacht. Yes, that to me

1:10:16

is always spoken to me. Somebody said

1:10:18

to me once, you're spiritually Russian. So

1:10:20

I think I have that in me,

1:10:22

so I just can't ignore it. So

1:10:25

how would you rank your dictators? Sounds

1:10:28

like you're a Putin guy or you? Putin

1:10:30

has a lot of class. Whether you like

1:10:32

him or not, he has a lot of class.

1:10:34

And number one, people do fall out of

1:10:36

windows in London. It does happen, actually. It's

1:10:39

not always, you know what I mean? It's

1:10:41

like sometimes somebody does take his spell. It's

1:10:44

not always him. Um, I like

1:10:46

him. I, I like, uh, Kim,

1:10:48

I think it's Jongoon in North

1:10:50

Korea. Yes. I like him. He

1:10:52

has style as well. Don't forget

1:10:55

Zelensky. He

1:11:00

just extended military

1:11:02

rule. He

1:11:05

just extended martial law. There's no

1:11:07

election. By the way, I like

1:11:10

sacks on this. And I think

1:11:12

when they told Putin that a

1:11:14

comedian was now the president of

1:11:16

the Ukraine, Putin probably said,

1:11:18

listen, are they serious? Are

1:11:20

they even trying anymore? Because

1:11:22

is the CIA even trying

1:11:24

anymore? Are you serious? Wait,

1:11:27

the guy who played the

1:11:29

president in a TV show is

1:11:31

now the actual president? Yes.

1:11:34

And Putin's getting this information sitting there

1:11:36

in his palace. Like, I Yes.

1:11:39

So, I mean, listen, all war is tragedy.

1:11:41

It's all terrible and bad. But,

1:11:43

you know, we also... I think David's done

1:11:45

a phenomenal job, by the way, of looking

1:11:47

at how you get to certain places. Hmm.

1:11:50

Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. And then I

1:11:52

think the, you a lot of private

1:11:54

shows. Yeah. You do a lot of

1:11:56

private shows, Tim. The private shows with

1:11:58

the dictators, the despots, the

1:12:00

monarchies, they pay what? Three to

1:12:02

one, four to one? They want to

1:12:04

laugh these people. They want to

1:12:06

laugh. Uh, you know, I mean, it's,

1:12:08

Duterte likes to laugh. So, you

1:12:11

know, these people want to laugh

1:12:13

and I'm not here. MBS wants

1:12:15

to laugh. I'm not here to

1:12:17

pass judgment on the audience. I'm

1:12:19

here to bring, well,

1:12:21

it's actually funny. I did like one private gig.

1:12:23

I don't get booked on a lot of private

1:12:25

gigs, but I got one big Bitcoin guy in

1:12:27

Romania had me go to his birthday party. And

1:12:29

it was just this older oligarch type guy. And

1:12:31

they all spoke Romanian. It was very hard. And

1:12:33

they paid me $100 ,000 to do 20 minutes

1:12:35

and they didn't really understand anything. And

1:12:37

then one guy just stood up and I

1:12:39

guess he recognized me. He started yelling, Joe

1:12:41

Rogan, Joe Rogan. And then sat down. So

1:12:44

I am open to, I'm open to

1:12:46

performing for anyone, really true. Anyone.

1:12:48

Idi, I mean, Iran, you could just

1:12:50

Kim Jong -un, just send a ticket. Hey,

1:12:53

hey, is the money green? Is the

1:12:55

money green over there? The money's not clean, but.

1:12:57

Is Iran that danger? I mean, all I

1:12:59

hear now every day is Iran's coming to kill

1:13:01

everyone. Is that true? I don't know. I'm

1:13:03

okay. Are they invading? Is Iran

1:13:05

landing an aspen? Building nukes, maybe want to

1:13:07

wipe out one or two countries. A little

1:13:09

genocide. Wish fulfillment.

1:13:12

How far are they along on those

1:13:14

nerds? We don't know that. 80 % them.

1:13:16

You think 80 %? They're perpetually

1:13:18

at 80%. We just keep knocking out the

1:13:20

last one as I can approach the... I

1:13:22

just don't think we need to put it

1:13:24

on the ground there. I don't think we

1:13:26

need to do this again. The two of

1:13:28

you are the living embodiment of ADHD. Yes.

1:13:31

Well, speaking of ADHD, do we want

1:13:33

to go ADHD or science? Tim, J.

1:13:35

Cal falls for every pro -war narrative

1:13:37

there is. Oh, absolutely. He's like,

1:13:39

I'm against war, but then he falls for

1:13:41

every single narrative they've had. Absolutely. Absolutely.

1:13:43

And you did a great job. You guys

1:13:45

have done ending the war on day

1:13:47

one of your administration. Congratulations. At

1:13:49

least he's trying. Wake me up actually

1:13:51

accomplish something. actually defend the administration?

1:13:53

We've actually ended it spiritually. We've

1:13:55

ended it spiritually. We have. We no

1:13:58

longer believe in it. It's

1:14:00

actually happening in the physical world, but

1:14:02

actually spiritually the war is over. Yes.

1:14:04

So you're manifesting the end of the

1:14:06

war. Well, it's over for me. The Ukraine

1:14:08

war is fully over for me. God.

1:14:11

So Lyski refuses to make a deal. You saw

1:14:13

what happened at the White House. I mean, if only

1:14:15

we had a dealmaker to help with this. Jason,

1:14:17

you know how you would know this for sure? Because

1:14:19

my intuition tells me that what

1:14:22

Tim just said is totally right is...

1:14:24

number of Ukraine flags that were

1:14:26

taken off of profile photos. Absolutely. I

1:14:28

don't want the pronouns. No, even

1:14:30

though it's a joke, I am being

1:14:32

very dead serious. The idea of

1:14:35

it has ended. It is now just

1:14:37

about a border negotiation. It

1:14:39

is no longer a

1:14:41

totemic struggle for freedom

1:14:43

or whatever it was

1:14:45

being sold to us

1:14:47

as. Totally agree. Takeout

1:14:50

still believes that. You can

1:14:52

speak for yourself. I

1:14:55

believe the free countries, just to be

1:14:57

clear, I believe the free countries should

1:14:59

stop the non -free countries from invading them.

1:15:01

That's it. It's a pretty simple philosophy.

1:15:03

Freberg, well, what's science? Tim, at the end of

1:15:05

the show, we like to do a little

1:15:08

corner. What are some of those vice documentaries about

1:15:10

the Ukraine being the most corrupt country in

1:15:12

Europe and like a white supremacist country and all

1:15:14

these things? What happened to all those vice

1:15:16

documentaries about that? They seem

1:15:18

to disappear very quickly.

1:15:20

when Ukraine became a

1:15:22

bastion of freedom and

1:15:24

love and opportunity and

1:15:26

equality. Now you're speaking Saxon's language.

1:15:28

Well, look at that smile on face.

1:15:30

Well, Nick, just put this on the screen. I mean,

1:15:33

this just happened yesterday. Oh, God.

1:15:35

But now we've started the Ukraine. Ukraine's

1:15:37

problem the sense martial law till August. That

1:15:39

seems extreme. Yeah,

1:15:42

no big deal. They cancel elections. They cancel

1:15:44

freedom of the press. They cancel freedom of

1:15:46

religion. So Linsky's political opponents,

1:15:48

their assets have been seized. They've been imprisoned.

1:15:50

No big deal. It's still democracy. His

1:15:53

favorite dictator is Putin as

1:15:55

well. Hey, Dave Freiburg. Tell the

1:15:57

first leader after 9 -11 to

1:15:59

call the United States in

1:16:01

express sympathy. I believe it was

1:16:03

Vladimir Putin. And how many

1:16:05

times has Vladimir Putin threatened American

1:16:07

interests over the last 20

1:16:10

odd years? Like, has Vladimir Putin,

1:16:12

has Russia been an existential

1:16:14

threat to America? Have they

1:16:16

disrupted huge amounts of our

1:16:18

trade? Have they It

1:16:21

seems to be very hard. wanted to be

1:16:23

a NATO. He wanted to be our ally. We

1:16:25

were buffed him. But you know what the

1:16:27

best quality of Putin is? We're not funding him.

1:16:30

He's not asking for American money. The rest of these

1:16:32

dictators, we keep funding. He's not asking for a

1:16:34

dollar. I also like that he's well -read. But

1:16:38

he's not coming to the White House

1:16:40

begging. He's not coming to the White House

1:16:42

every three months begging for more hundreds

1:16:44

of billions. But

1:16:46

any criticism of the Ukraine war means that

1:16:49

you love Putin and want to live

1:16:51

in Russia and think Russia is great. It's

1:16:53

a very weird, mannequin sense of good

1:16:55

and evil that was instituted by George W.

1:16:57

Bush right after 9 -11 when he said,

1:16:59

you're with us or against us. And

1:17:01

with us means we're going to democratize the

1:17:04

Middle East, which I fell for because

1:17:06

I was 17 and uncooking. But in hindsight,

1:17:08

it didn't work tremendously well. And

1:17:10

I just, it's always very skeptical. I'm

1:17:12

very skeptical of these narratives where they say,

1:17:14

so if you find any fault at

1:17:16

all in what you're doing, in what we're

1:17:18

doing, you're giving, you're aiding and abetting

1:17:20

a dictator. It makes no sense to me.

1:17:22

Speaking of the 90s in cocaine, Freedberg,

1:17:24

what's in corners? You'll notice he's moving on,

1:17:26

Tim. He does not respond to that. Freedberg

1:17:29

is really upset the last couple of

1:17:31

weeks that he got preempted. I'm trying to

1:17:33

do right by Freedberg and the Freedberg

1:17:35

stands. who are just absolutely mental now that

1:17:38

we haven't talked about his incredible victory

1:17:40

on Jeopardy. And we haven't gotten to Science

1:17:42

Corner in a couple of weeks. Congrats. Tim, if

1:17:44

you were ever, what game show do you want

1:17:46

to be on, Tim? None of them. None

1:17:48

of them. None. All the money on Celebrity Jeopardy.

1:17:50

would you want to host, Tim? No game shows. You

1:17:53

wouldn't host a game show. You must have been offered. No,

1:17:55

never. I don't think I'm

1:17:57

what they want for the game show. a

1:17:59

money printing machine. You could get in a

1:18:01

game show, Family Feud or something. No, but

1:18:03

I do. It all goes to

1:18:05

charity. Was it Freeberg? Was it hard?

1:18:09

Yeah, well, I shot the quarterfinal and semifinal

1:18:11

in the same afternoon. So I didn't

1:18:13

have any, know, you go away for lunch

1:18:15

and you come back for the semifinals. And

1:18:18

I did not know how to use

1:18:20

that buzzer. And everyone else, I think,

1:18:22

had practiced or figured that stuff out.

1:18:25

So it was pretty difficult. And then

1:18:27

my brain was just blank on some

1:18:29

of these moments. You're just up there.

1:18:31

There's this intensity. You're in this game show. And

1:18:34

it's like, I know the answer. Why is it not

1:18:36

coming out of my mouth? Or why did I say that

1:18:38

thing that I know is wrong that just came out

1:18:40

of my mouth? It's a little bit kind of scary. Let's

1:18:43

show the clip here, and then we'll go

1:18:45

on to Science Corner. Watch this clip. Watch

1:18:47

this. Final Jeopardy. I'm in the last place.

1:18:49

So I was behind the entire game. I

1:18:51

was basically in last place the whole game.

1:18:53

Playing catch up. I could not buzz in

1:18:55

in time. Yeah. It all comes down to

1:18:57

this. Final Jeopardy in a very close game.

1:18:59

So exciting. This is the category. Here's

1:19:02

the clue, players. Mon Freedberg called

1:19:04

the premier movie industry event for

1:19:06

the Balkans. This festival began

1:19:08

30 years ago while the city was

1:19:10

under siege. We'll begin on the end

1:19:12

with Dave Freedberg who had $8 ,700. And

1:19:15

it looks like he changed his answer at

1:19:17

the last minute. What happened here? He wrote

1:19:19

down something and crossed it out and wrote

1:19:21

Sarajevo Film Festival. We can read Sarajevo, and

1:19:23

that's the important part, right? We're going to

1:19:25

give you credit. You wagered

1:19:27

$8 ,697, and now you have

1:19:29

$17 ,397. You're ahead of Mina

1:19:32

Kimes at the moment with

1:19:34

$17 ,000. What did she put

1:19:36

down? I did my math wrong.

1:19:38

Oh, She wrote down can, and

1:19:41

she wagered. What? A

1:19:43

thousand that drops her down to

1:19:45

16 ,000 So it comes down

1:19:47

to shongan who had 22 ,000. Did

1:19:50

he know one either way avo

1:19:52

film festival? He said Bosnia right

1:19:54

country wrong city. What did you

1:19:56

wager? 12 ,001 9 ,999 and from

1:19:58

he could just stay free

1:20:00

bird come What did he do? Can

1:20:03

I ask a question and this

1:20:05

is a very this is a

1:20:07

serious question and it is not

1:20:09

disrespectful Why do they

1:20:11

call this celebrity Jeopardy? You're correct. I

1:20:14

did not identify one

1:20:17

of those people with a

1:20:19

gun to my head. I

1:20:22

don't know. There were 27. I didn't

1:20:24

know any of them. I felt in place.

1:20:27

I mean, I think the guy

1:20:29

in the middle with James

1:20:31

Gunn's brother, who was in, he

1:20:33

played like the 17th guy

1:20:35

in Guardians of the Galaxy. What

1:20:37

is happening? I mean

1:20:39

if you're going to Marvel universes

1:20:41

characters speaking roles pull him up

1:20:43

for a second. He has non -speaking

1:20:45

role in a Marvel movie. There's

1:20:47

1400 Marvel movies and this guy

1:20:49

hasn't spoken to one. Come on

1:20:51

stop. Him. That's

1:20:54

Marvel... Who was the other

1:20:56

lady? I think

1:20:58

she's... Who's that? I

1:21:00

mean... She's on ESPN.

1:21:02

A researcher on ESPN. And

1:21:04

she does fencing, right?

1:21:07

She's the fencing person from

1:21:09

ESPN. Oh, I think

1:21:11

she covers football at ESPN. Football

1:21:13

or football? Was

1:21:15

this actually celebrity Jeopardy or

1:21:18

is this just like Jeopardy?

1:21:20

Just call it Jeopardy. Just

1:21:22

call it Jeopardy. Easy Jeopardy.

1:21:24

Just call it Jeopardy. Just

1:21:26

call it hey, we're doing

1:21:28

this thing now. They should

1:21:30

do a comedian. Okay,

1:21:33

the finals are next Wednesday at 9

1:21:35

p .m. Have you actually done the episode?

1:21:37

When is the final episode? How

1:21:40

do we make money at this? How do we front and run this? Oh,

1:21:42

he's done it already. So you know the winner. Why don't

1:21:44

we do a poly market for this? And we could

1:21:46

all cash in and get off this show. We

1:21:49

could all just cash in. Somebody

1:21:53

to shoot this dog. There is a

1:21:55

dollar number, J .K .L. Are

1:21:58

people watching this? 10 times

1:22:00

30 million, 10 times 40 million.

1:22:03

35%. Who's the first? Actually,

1:22:06

Tim's asking, do

1:22:08

the ratings go up or down for celebrity

1:22:10

jeopardy? Down. Certainly

1:22:12

down. They used to be good. So

1:22:14

I think regular, well, they do it at

1:22:16

9 PM on Wednesday nights. Okay. So

1:22:18

it's not even during. Upside

1:22:20

for celebrity to go on this. If a celebrity goes on

1:22:22

this and they're known for being smart, if George Clooney

1:22:24

goes on, right? Exactly. I realize this when I got there.

1:22:26

I'm like, wait a second. There's no upside in me.

1:22:29

doing this, I'm going to look like an idiot and I

1:22:31

answered all these stupid questions wrong and I look like

1:22:33

a moron. I'm like, why did I do that? No,

1:22:35

it's a stupid show

1:22:38

that should go away. No,

1:22:43

I mean, it's like this idea that

1:22:45

like all these people that nobody knows

1:22:47

the hell they are, it just, you

1:22:49

know, the people at home are going,

1:22:51

who the hell? What the fuck is

1:22:53

this? The lady from

1:22:55

ESPN says, caught like she thinks

1:22:58

it's in France. This

1:23:00

is just making people mad that go, hey

1:23:02

man, I got nothing going on, and these

1:23:04

people are celebrities or idiots. I

1:23:06

mean, same continent? She hit the same

1:23:08

continent, right? It's just filling people with rage,

1:23:11

looking at these people that aren't even

1:23:13

celebrities, and on top of that are morons.

1:23:15

I mean, you have an obligation to either

1:23:18

be a celebrity or be a nerd.

1:23:20

It did say the Balkans. the

1:23:22

Balkans. It did say the Balkans. This is a

1:23:24

little rough, I mean. A

1:23:26

little brutal. Hey, save the show,

1:23:28

Dave. Please, give us science corner. I'll

1:23:30

do a quick science corner. And

1:23:33

the name of the game here, Tylan, just since your

1:23:35

first time on the show, is somehow,

1:23:37

if you can get around the horn and

1:23:39

put in a Uranus joke, you'll just

1:23:41

kill with the audience. I'm going to try to

1:23:44

do that. My producer right now, we're setting up a

1:23:46

company in Bhutan. That's my whole

1:23:48

thing now. Oh, you're going to be flipping

1:23:50

H -100s. But I just learned so much on

1:23:52

the front half of the show. It's

1:23:54

a company in Bhutan. Give us

1:23:56

the chips. Wink, wink. They're

1:23:58

not going to Beijing at all. Wink. My godsons,

1:24:00

Chinese. They go in the back, they go through

1:24:02

the front, maybe the side door. My godsons, truly,

1:24:05

I swear to God, they brought him to my

1:24:07

home when he was four months old, because they

1:24:09

know I'm single and I have a little bit

1:24:11

of money, not compared to you, but compared to

1:24:13

these people. And they said, would you be his

1:24:15

godfather? He's Chinese. Absolutely, I

1:24:17

said, high end, let's go. Four years later,

1:24:19

they tell me, they go, he's actually

1:24:21

Filipino. I'm not even kidding. So

1:24:23

this is why you can't

1:24:26

trust anyone in this country

1:24:28

about anything. Even your adoption,

1:24:31

your... Wow. A

1:24:33

corrupt adoption. Okay, let's

1:24:36

do science corner. Science corner.

1:24:38

Mitochondria or... Today is Mitochondria

1:24:40

Therapy Day. So every

1:24:42

cell in our body has mitochondria.

1:24:45

Tim, you know that, right? Yeah, it's

1:24:47

the powerhouse of the cell. Powerhouse in

1:24:49

a cell exactly and it's a little

1:24:51

organelle segment. Yeah, you can drop

1:24:54

off sex. Okay. See you later Okay,

1:24:58

yeah. Excellent. I'll

1:25:00

see you at the Food Film Festival. You

1:25:05

forgot to say what is. I'll

1:25:08

see you at the Moscow Film I mean,

1:25:10

yeah, I need to run to Sean Hannity's show,

1:25:12

unfortunately. Sorry, no,

1:25:14

unfortunately. Don't say unfortunately. You

1:25:16

can leave that in. I like him. Absolutely.

1:25:18

He's amazing, yes. I really enjoy you guys.

1:25:20

Thank you for having me on. I really

1:25:23

learned this was amazing. And

1:25:25

I'd love to do it again. I

1:25:27

appreciate all of you. I

1:25:29

think you're all great. And

1:25:32

whatever you're doing on the side,

1:25:34

whatever you people eventually get arrested for,

1:25:36

I support you. Just know that.

1:25:38

I'm a supporter of whatever happens at

1:25:40

the oil and podcast. Whenever

1:25:43

it comes out that there's a reason

1:25:45

why you knew so much about the

1:25:47

Bhutan company, it doesn't matter to me.

1:25:49

I'm a fan. Thank

1:25:52

you everybody watched

1:25:54

him Dylan special

1:25:56

on the Netflix.

1:25:58

Hopefully he can

1:26:00

he was great

1:26:03

finally Eclipse love

1:26:05

on the spectrum

1:26:07

love on the

1:26:09

spectrum Okay And

1:26:12

then there were three, you know what? As

1:26:15

a standalone show and we're gonna

1:26:17

side with you you do tabs

1:26:20

corner with me. I'm going to

1:26:22

eat lunch. I love you guys

1:26:24

I got it. I got your

1:26:26

size corner. I'm with you to

1:26:28

the end brother free burdens me

1:26:30

and you buddy Tell me about

1:26:32

science quarter. I'm interested. You're interested.

1:26:34

We've got no listeners. We've got

1:26:36

no audience at this point I'm

1:26:38

here for your segment. Go ahead

1:26:41

tape Oh, for the four of

1:26:43

you and Chamath. Okay. So mitochondria

1:26:45

are the powerhouse of the cell,

1:26:47

as Tim just told us, educated

1:26:49

us, right? So every cell has

1:26:51

hundreds of mitochondria. Mitochondria

1:26:53

are what are called organelles. They

1:26:55

have their own DNA. In

1:26:57

fact, evolutionarily, mitochondria were

1:26:59

bacteria that basically ended up

1:27:01

in the symbiotic relationship

1:27:03

with what became our cells.

1:27:06

So we each have mitochondria,

1:27:08

hundreds of them in each one of our cells.

1:27:10

Each mitochondria has its own nucleus and has its

1:27:12

own DNA. And the mitochondria

1:27:14

make the energy that the rest of the

1:27:16

cell uses. That energy is called ATP, and

1:27:19

it eats up glucose or it

1:27:21

eats up ketones if you're in ketosis,

1:27:23

and it uses that to make

1:27:25

the ATP. So every cell in our

1:27:27

body gets its energy, which is

1:27:29

what it uses to function from the

1:27:31

mitochondria. And so there's been a

1:27:33

lot of research into the relationship between

1:27:36

mitochondria and aging and that dysfunctional

1:27:38

mitochondria, as they start to break down

1:27:40

and stop working and have damage,

1:27:42

may actually be a key driver for

1:27:44

many diseases that we experience as

1:27:46

humans, including many cancers, Alzheimer's,

1:27:48

Parkinson's, ALS, features of autism, muscle

1:27:50

tissues being weak, et cetera.

1:27:52

So as the cells get older

1:27:55

and the mitochondria stopped working,

1:27:57

we make new mitochondria. But over

1:27:59

time, the DNA degrades and

1:28:01

the mitochondria had become less effective.

1:28:03

And there are fewer functional

1:28:05

mitochondria per cell. The cell

1:28:07

stops working right. Can I ask you

1:28:10

question? eventually the organism stops working right.

1:28:12

Have you learned anything about the connection

1:28:14

of creatine to mitochondrial health? It's

1:28:16

part of some of the processes,

1:28:18

but there's some separate research on this,

1:28:20

but it's definitely worth spending time

1:28:22

on. We can see about

1:28:24

you taking five grams or ten grams five

1:28:26

million like a trend. Yeah, I think I know

1:28:28

five grams. Yeah, something like that. It's trending

1:28:30

on Twitter I think it's kind of like a

1:28:33

meme or a joke in addition to but

1:28:35

I don't think it's a joke is it is

1:28:37

it but it does it Is there any

1:28:39

science that backs that up or not really for

1:28:41

mitochondria? There are questions on this like do

1:28:43

you want to focus on things that are? Increasing

1:28:46

biogenesis, which is creation of new

1:28:48

mitochondria. Does that create a better benefit?

1:28:50

on the creatine work. I've read

1:28:52

some of these papers. I actually tried

1:28:54

it for a while. I

1:28:56

personally had an allergy to

1:28:59

it, which is kind of rare,

1:29:01

but happens. But

1:29:03

anyway, we can talk about it further. So

1:29:05

one of the key things was there are

1:29:07

three papers that I wanted to just highlight that

1:29:09

kind of follow an interesting theme. The

1:29:11

first one was from 2023 from Wash

1:29:13

U in St. Louis. And

1:29:16

this paper, Nick, if you could just pull

1:29:18

up that image of mitochondria

1:29:21

being transferred, these

1:29:23

folks identified and demonstrated that

1:29:25

mitochondria can actually transfer from one

1:29:27

cell to another. So

1:29:29

if you've got a cell that's

1:29:31

got damaged or dysfunctional mitochondria, they've identified

1:29:33

three mechanisms by which mitochondria can

1:29:36

move into a cell that needs

1:29:38

more mitochondria that are working and are

1:29:40

more functional. That's something that's been

1:29:42

theorized for a long time. People have

1:29:44

said, oh, well, we think mitochondria

1:29:46

transfer, but there wasn't really evidence of

1:29:48

this. So as of two years

1:29:50

ago, these guys provided very good

1:29:53

evidence of mitochondria that we can now

1:29:55

put into cells. If it's floating

1:29:57

around, it can make its way into

1:29:59

another cell. And as a result,

1:30:01

it can rejuvenate or provide energy

1:30:03

to a dysfunctional cell, which might improve

1:30:05

dysfunctional tissue or improve disease. The

1:30:08

second paper. was done last

1:30:10

month out of Columbia University. And this

1:30:12

was the first mapping of the mitochondria

1:30:14

in the human brain. And so these

1:30:16

folks created 703 tiny cubes of brain

1:30:18

from a person that passed away, a

1:30:20

54 year old donor. And then they

1:30:22

analyzed the mitochondria in each of those

1:30:24

cubes and they use that to make

1:30:26

a map of mitochondria in the brain.

1:30:28

And what it showed was that different

1:30:31

parts of the brain, different

1:30:33

cells had different amounts of mitochondria

1:30:35

and different mitochondrial function. which actually starts

1:30:37

to highlight how that difference in

1:30:39

energy production and different cells in different

1:30:41

parts of the brain may actually

1:30:43

cause some of the things like memory

1:30:45

loss or speech impairment. Or

1:30:47

as we age, the fact that

1:30:49

we end up being kind of

1:30:51

forgetful or start to lose some

1:30:54

of our capacity, that the mitochondrial

1:30:56

dysfunction in the brain might actually

1:30:58

be the key driver of that

1:31:00

aging symptomology. The third

1:31:02

paper, which just came out, came

1:31:04

out of a team at Shé

1:31:06

Xiang University in China. So

1:31:08

what these guys did, which was really incredible, is

1:31:11

they took stem cells, so stem cells that

1:31:13

they got out of human blood, and they

1:31:15

took those stem cells and they figured out

1:31:17

a way to treat the stem cells that

1:31:19

those stem cells would start to make an

1:31:21

excess amount of mitochondria than they normally would

1:31:23

make. In fact, they

1:31:25

were able to get those

1:31:28

stem cells to make 854

1:31:30

times the number of mitochondria

1:31:32

that those cells would normally

1:31:34

make. And those mitochondria were

1:31:36

on average 5 .7 times more

1:31:38

efficient at making energy ATP.

1:31:40

So they created highly energetic mitochondria and

1:31:42

they made a lot of them. And

1:31:45

the idea that we can put mitochondria

1:31:47

into our body or into tissue in our

1:31:49

body to heal it or repair it

1:31:51

has been something that folks have been trying

1:31:54

to do research around for a long

1:31:56

time. But the limiting factor is access to