transcript
Speaker 1:
[00:00] Support for this show comes from Harvey AI. The future of law is agentic, not just tools that assist, but AI agents that navigate complex matters. That's why Harvey created agents that can do the work from end to end. They build a plan, pull from the secure data sources, run sub-agents in parallel, and draft work product ready for your review. So you can delegate work and own the judgment. Trusted by more than 60 percent of the AM Law 100 and leading Fortune 500 legal teams, Harvey is an AI operating system designed specifically for legal work. Harvey, AI tailored for law. Learn more at harvey.ai.
Speaker 2:
[00:42] Support for the show comes from BackMarket. Everyone listening to this pod has heard or seen an ad telling you how much you need their latest tech. Let me let you in on a little secret. You don't need that upgrade. Companies often tell you that you need this version just to find out it basically does what the previous version can do. That's why BackMarket, the world's leader in premium refurbished tech is giving you another option. BackMarket offers a range of high-quality tech inspected and refurbished by professionals. It's all they do. They have phones, computers, gaming consoles, vacuum cleaners and even iPods. Plus, they're a company with a purpose as refurbished tech is proven to have a significantly lower environmental impact than new stuff. Shop now at backmarket.com. This episode is brought to you by the Build Podcast, a new podcast from the guys behind Sincera, Michael Sullivan and Ian Myers. Mike and Ian built their company by figuring out clever solutions to a few important ad tech problems in their industry. And that philosophy is exactly what this show is all about. In it, they interview some of the smartest tech minds in the biz to hear about how they identified opportunities, solve their hardest challenges, and grew their businesses in the process. Listen to the Build with Michael Sullivan wherever you get your podcasts. When will I be enough Kara?
Speaker 1:
[01:55] Never. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.
Speaker 2:
[02:04] So I'm in this job interview.
Speaker 1:
[02:06] Oh, no.
Speaker 2:
[02:09] And the interviewer says, no joke says, what's this four-year gap in your resume? And I said, well, I went to Yale. And she said, wow, that's really impressive. You're hard. And I said, thank God, I really need this job.
Speaker 1:
[02:27] Oh, okay. That's good. That's good.
Speaker 2:
[02:29] That's good.
Speaker 1:
[02:30] It takes a minute, but it's good.
Speaker 2:
[02:33] Yeah. I think you need to laugh out. Do I need to go lesbian? Is that what we're doing here? Lesbian jokes?
Speaker 1:
[02:37] Please don't. Please don't.
Speaker 2:
[02:39] Kara, what do you call a lesbian mechanic?
Speaker 1:
[02:42] What?
Speaker 2:
[02:42] By her name, you homophobe.
Speaker 1:
[02:44] Oh my God. Okay. That was good. All right. I'm going to let you have those. How was your weekend?
Speaker 2:
[02:51] Weekend.
Speaker 1:
[02:52] Weekend.
Speaker 2:
[02:53] Whatever. That was last weekend.
Speaker 1:
[02:54] Where are you?
Speaker 2:
[02:54] You work so much, you've lost all sense of time and space.
Speaker 1:
[02:57] It's true. I went to the Devil Wears Prada to premiere.
Speaker 2:
[03:01] That looked fabulous. I was really bummed to miss that.
Speaker 1:
[03:05] Yeah. It was amazing. I actually get a line in it.
Speaker 2:
[03:07] Oh, do you? That's right. I want to see it. That's exciting.
Speaker 1:
[03:10] Then I have to tell you, the whole movie is actually quite, it's as good as the last one, but it's also a little deeper and really interesting take on media. It's both funny and also somewhat profound and also beautiful. I happen the music is off the frigging charts. Is it? They're all at their peak, but one person, they're all great. Let me just say, and Anne Hathaway is at the heart of the movie, but every character is great. Stanley Tucci, obviously Meryl Streep. The side characters are amazing. Emily Blunt is great, but Justin Theroux playing a billionaire. He's playing like a Jeff Bezos.
Speaker 2:
[03:46] I heard he steals the show. I'm biased, but I've heard he steals the show.
Speaker 1:
[03:51] It's close only because everybody is so high level in this thing and everyone looks amazing. Oh my God. I don't know. He's doing a Jeff Bezos, Elon kind of thing, teal thing, and he doesn't look good. He's like a little bit puffy, but he looks good. He's such a handsome man. But I have to tell you, he is so fantastic.
Speaker 2:
[04:13] If you're a Justin fan, it's one weekend when you want to binge, watch The Leftovers.
Speaker 1:
[04:18] Different.
Speaker 2:
[04:19] Oh, much different. Much different. By the way, I haven't seen The Devil's Product, but we absolutely need more sequels in the world. But anyways, I will see it because I'm a huge fan of Justin, and I think Emily Blunt and Anne Hathaway are scorching hot.
Speaker 1:
[04:32] Yeah. Well, you'll love this movie then.
Speaker 2:
[04:34] But I was so bummed. It looked fabulous.
Speaker 1:
[04:36] Some sequels don't work. This one is better, but not. I loved the first one because I thought it was such a great movie.
Speaker 2:
[04:44] The best thing that could happen for the creative community is if there was a 36-month ban on production for any sequel because they have a total dearth of original material to make sequels on.
Speaker 1:
[04:52] I get it, but this has been 20 years, so I'm going to give it to them.
Speaker 2:
[04:55] I'm not going to ship post Devil Wears Prada 2. I'm glad you liked it. I wish I was genuinely jealous. I saw the TikToks of all the people there and it looked really cool.
Speaker 1:
[05:03] Let me give credit to David Frankel, who's the director. It's just when Hollywood does a great job, they really do a great job. They really do and so I have to say kudos to them and Justin, we love you. You're going to just die laughing your ass off.
Speaker 2:
[05:20] Yeah, I can't wait to see it.
Speaker 1:
[05:22] Yeah, he's really good.
Speaker 2:
[05:23] Yeah, he just had a baby boy.
Speaker 1:
[05:25] Yeah, he did. Congratulations, Justin, he's his wife. Anyway, let's get to the news. First, Tucker Carlson, one of Trump's biggest supporters over the last few years now says he regrets helping get Trump elected. He offered an apology on the latest episode of the Tucker Carlson Show while speaking with his brother Buckley, a former Trump speech writer, Tucker and Buckley. Oh my goodness. Let's listen.
Speaker 3:
[05:48] I and everyone else who supported him, he wrote speeches for him, I campaigned for him. We're implicated in this for sure. Yes. It's not enough to say, well, I've changed my mind, or like, oh, this is bad, I'm out. It's like in very small ways, but in real ways, you and me and millions of people like us are the reason this is happening right now. Yes. So, I do think it's like a moment to wrestle with our own consciences. You know, we'll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be. And I want to say I'm sorry for misleading people. It was not intentional. That's all I'll say.
Speaker 1:
[06:28] So Tucker might be tormented. Is he trying to pull a Joe Rogan? Is he going back to Trump when he needs something? I mean, he's done this before in those e-mails during the trial that Fox had and lost. He would call them demonic. He's been here and I don't think Trump has been anything but explicit about what he is for a very long time. So I'd love to talk about this and the idea of redemption, like that Rogan was trying to do it. Of course, the minute he gave him his psychedelics, he shows right up. And green is one. The thing I was talking about was the you got a lot of pushback for your Ben Shapiro comments this week. This week I've got-
Speaker 2:
[07:12] You know my comments, my interview.
Speaker 1:
[07:13] Your interview, excuse me. But also what you said about him and stuff. So these people seem to be moving this way in a way that's, is it real? Is it not real? How much should we hold people responsible for the things they've said? Previously, green has been terrible. Ben has been, many things are not this stuff, especially around trans and people of color has been repugnant to me at least, gay people.
Speaker 2:
[07:39] But you would put Ben and Tucker in the same category?
Speaker 1:
[07:42] I put them all in a different way because I think a lot of what Ben has said previously is really, if I read it, I mean, I can read it to you if you'd like, but I want to talk about the bigger idea of giving people space. They are obviously Tucker is and Rogan is and Theo Vaughn is, and Marjorie Taylor Greene are trying, even Megyn Kelly on this redemption tour in a weird way. I not necessarily believe it, but I want to talk about this issue of when you let people say, I made a mistake a couple of years ago when I said this heinous thing, forgive me, which is what Tucker is asking for here.
Speaker 2:
[08:19] Look, this is do as I say, not as I do, because I think the right thing is be careful shaming people for saying they were wrong and coming back into the fold. Because that's how we maintain our virtue and indignance and elect Jade Vance. I think we just need to be a little bit more, when people say, I up and this guy is bad, fine, welcome them. That's the smart thing to do. I have a difficult time resisting telling Marjorie Taylor Greene, or a difficult time not telling her to sit down when all of a sudden, when it no longer matters and she doesn't get his support or endorsement to run for Senate, she's all of a sudden decided that he's bad. For me, when I saw those comments from Tucker, it seemed to me to be, I thought, I think I absolutely know what's going on here. He's running for president, Kara.
Speaker 1:
[09:10] Yeah.
Speaker 2:
[09:11] Do you realize what an enormous lane there is for somebody who has very conservative values, an enormous media platform, an enormous army of acolytes that he could weaponize right away, and, by the way, is anti-Trump and anti-the war in Iran, which a huge swath of Republicans are now. Who occupies that lane right now? And I disagree with Kalshi on this. I think here and now, Tucker Carlson is the most likely GOP nominee for president in 2028. Put him on stage with Rubio and Vance, he's going to slice and dice them. So we do, I believe, as Democrats and I realize it brings some bias to the table. I think you could go six, seven people deep. I think the eighth most likely person to get the nomination, like a Senator Klobuchar or an Ossoff, they are 10 times better than the person leading in the prediction platforms for the Republican Party, JD Vance. We have a deep bench. As deep as our bench is, theirs is that shallow. JD Vance? Jesus Christ, he makes Goebbels likable. I mean, the guy is unattractive. They're going to have a field day taking all of his statements and his gymnastics and his hypocrisy and his weirdness, whether it's saying that the Pope should be more careful to speaking to notions of religion. Well, I mean, he said so many ridiculous things that they're going to have a field day with.
Speaker 1:
[10:53] Yes, he shifted rather a lot.
Speaker 2:
[10:55] And then they'll connect them, and they haven't even started connecting them to teal and that fucking weirdness.
Speaker 1:
[11:00] Well, but the shiftingness of this Tucker thing, for example, I mean, didn't he know or why did he suddenly know? Or was it just because it's Israel and this Iran war? What is it? It's like, how do you believe-
Speaker 2:
[11:15] It's calculated. It's strategy.
Speaker 1:
[11:16] In this case, it's calculated. Because I think he's already said this privately and it got out in those legal filings.
Speaker 2:
[11:22] He's always hated Trump. I think Tucker is a smart guy. I think anyone who's intelligent. And whatever you say about Tucker, I don't know. He's an intelligent, impressive media figure. He is very good at what he does. And he could not stand Trump, and then saw that his audience was going there, and that's the way he was going to make money, was to be just blindly supportive of Trump. Now he sees an opening. He's the leading candidate for president.
Speaker 1:
[11:50] How does he escape the heinous things he said? Like a lot of, look, Green has-
Speaker 2:
[11:53] He's trying to recast himself. He's apologized and now he has two years to take on an anti-Trump Republican. He has two years to basically carve out and cement a lane of, I am anti-Trump, I'm an anti-Trump conservative that was anti-war that neither Vance nor Rubio can carve out. He's very well positioned.
Speaker 1:
[12:16] Right. But then how do you- I want to talk about the bigger picture of escaping this, like the Marjorie Taylor Greene's and Shapiro was doing that, and you know we've gotten a lot of flag. I get your flag too.
Speaker 2:
[12:31] Bring it on.
Speaker 1:
[12:32] Okay. Explain it because you said, let me just push back it too if you don't mind.
Speaker 2:
[12:36] Sure.
Speaker 1:
[12:37] You said you appreciate his moral clarity and reasoning. I'm going to take issue. I think he's very smart. There's no question. I'm going to take some issue and I sometimes agree with some of the things he says, not a lot of them, but some of them. He also took a shot at me that was inaccurate and put it in the corner.
Speaker 2:
[12:52] On my podcast?
Speaker 1:
[12:54] No, you said on your podcast.
Speaker 2:
[12:55] He took a shot at you?
Speaker 1:
[12:56] No, before previously. He did call to apologize to me about it, which I appreciated. But that said, the moral clarity thing, I would have trouble. How do you escape things like, let me just tell you a couple of things he said, which is why I found it a little bit disturbing. He called transgenderism a mental disorder. He argues that homosexuality should remain in the DSM as a mental illness. He's called women who have abortions baby killers. He said a man and a woman do a better job of raising a child than two men or women. That's not even getting into some of the comments he makes about Arabs. He said, this was a long time ago. He walked back those comments as being dumb when he said, Israelis like to build, Arabs like to bomb and live in open sewage, which I didn't think was something one should say. And any number of men and women things. But and then Green herself, let me move on to Green, is saying a lot of incredible things. That said, another person who attacks trans and gay people, says every now and then drops what I consider to be very anti-Semitic tropes very quickly once she gets past, I don't like war, she says Jewish when she means Israel quite a bit. And so you kind of see the play there. I do want to, like, how do you, I couldn't, I don't think I could talk to Ben Shapiro because of a lot of the things, unless in some way. How, talk about this, whether our country, and I just talked to Sted Herndon about this, is that most regular people do forgive people, or they say, oh, we didn't mean it. And Tucker's trying to do the same thing. Joe Rogan's trying to do the same thing.
Speaker 2:
[14:36] Gavin Newsom's trying to do the same thing.
Speaker 1:
[14:38] Gavin Newsom's trying to do, yes, he's shifting the other way, which I also have written him and said, I find this like, what are you doing here? And we can disagree with each other, but how easy is it to let people back in? And what should be the, I guess what should be the criteria? I guess there'll be different criteria for each person.
Speaker 2:
[14:57] At a very spiritual level, the question around letting people back in is forgiveness is divine, and you wanna err on the side of forgiveness. Having said that, I think the more salient question is who do you decide to platform or not? So I've had a lot of people from quote unquote the Manosphere contact me directly and say, you have misrepresented me, you are part of the Manosphere, but you're Manosphere light, we could have a productive conversation. I'm coming on and I'm like, to be blunt, I think what you have said is so unproductive and so damaging for young men that I don't wanna give you any oxygen. I don't even wanna get in your face. I don't wanna have an argument. I don't use the most famous misogynist, I don't use his name because I don't wanna give them oxygen. So the question is, do you give a guy like Ben Shapiro?
Speaker 1:
[15:43] Which one is it? Which one is it? Go ahead.
Speaker 2:
[15:44] Well, you can probably guess.
Speaker 1:
[15:47] Andrew Tate.
Speaker 2:
[15:47] Well, someone who's been jailed for accusations of trafficking women.
Speaker 1:
[15:53] Andrew Tate, I will use his name.
Speaker 2:
[15:54] I mean, okay. So, but I don't, he likes it. Every time his name is used, the algorithms elevate his content and other platforms.
Speaker 1:
[16:02] He's number one on Substack.
Speaker 2:
[16:04] And the reality is, if you talk to young men, most young men have written him off a long time ago. But I think because he's such an easy punching bag, we mentioned his name and the algorithms pick it up and elevate his content. Anyways, and a lot of young people will be drawn, especially young men, to people who are controversial figures. So my feeling is there's certain people you just choke off their oxygen supply. So the question is, with someone like Ben, he has said, in my opinion, wrong, even maybe vile things. I said to him, I said in my post comments after my interview with him, the thing that really bothers me about Ben is that he has courageously called out these far right people and said, we can't engage in this conspiracy theory, this hate mongering. He said that to that group. I thought that was fairly courageous of him to call out those people. What my issue or one of my issues with Ben is that these people were conspiracy theorists accusing world leaders, first ladies of having penises or accusing people of just very heinous things, some of the transgender stuff. He was a bit of an apologist, but then when they went against Israel, that was the red line for him. I'm like, okay, basically Ben has decided to excommunicate and call out people on the far right, not when they're homophobes or bigots, but when they become anti-Semitic. And I said that, I disagree with a lot of what Ben says. This is Ben Shapiro. He grew up in a lower middle class home. He's so fucking smart, he got to Harvard. He's built a great company. He is willing to acknowledge points. I love just watching him debate to just take notes on how I make my progressive viewpoints, how I articulate my progressive viewpoints in a more compelling way. Also, I am done with this notion of this apostate culture on the left, where if I don't choose the right words or have the right people on my podcast, people act as if I've betrayed them. There is a line. I will never have Candace Owens on my podcast. I will never have Nipuentes on my podcast. But I think Ben brings a really intellectual, adept, clever arguments and viewpoints to issues I don't agree with him on, and I think it's a healthy dialogue.
Speaker 1:
[18:26] I'm not sure they're saying you shouldn't have him on. I think it was the moral clarity thing, I think, was what.
Speaker 2:
[18:33] Okay, I chose the wrong words.
Speaker 1:
[18:34] I get it.
Speaker 2:
[18:35] He doesn't back down. He has a view and then he doesn't back down. He's not trying to go where the wind goes or what gets him the most likes on Instagram. I respect that. I think he genuinely believes what he believes. He tries to provide evidence and argument. I said, I'm a fan of Ben Shapiro. I'm a fan. You have to separate the person from the politics. I think he is an impressive young man who has demonstrated incredible intellect and really made it an incredibly successful media company. And this notion that I believe when we all start barking up the same tree, we get really fucking stupid. And I think that people on the left and the right have a tendency to all want to find the right words, especially people on the left, and get angry at anybody that wants to have a discourse.
Speaker 1:
[19:23] Oh, come on, Scott. The right has gotten so censorious. Like, they're the ones who are actually doing the censoring. There is a purity test on the right right now around Trump, around everything else. And pushing, these people pushing back is hard, I have to say, despite their histories.
Speaker 2:
[19:39] I find that the far right or the right, not the far right, I find the right just writes me and you off. They just say we're libtards. The most hate I get is from progressives who are like, we thought you could trust. When you said Biden was too old, you don't understand the assignment. We thought we could trust you.
Speaker 1:
[19:57] Right.
Speaker 2:
[19:58] Wait, do you remember the hate I got on a podcast when I said that transgender women should not be allowed to compete in women's sports? Do you remember that one? I mean, it's okay. You are with us 100 percent or you're against us.
Speaker 1:
[20:11] Well, that's different than having a debate over a very complex issue and saying transgenderism is a mental disorder or that homosexuality.
Speaker 2:
[20:19] I didn't say that.
Speaker 1:
[20:20] No, Shapiro did.
Speaker 2:
[20:22] Okay. So should we not ever talk to Ben because he said that?
Speaker 1:
[20:26] I think we do.
Speaker 2:
[20:26] Should we not ask him to defend his comments?
Speaker 1:
[20:28] I think that's what I'm asking you. It's a really difficult thing. I've thought about having Marjorie Taylor Greene on and then I read a lot. I'm like, just because I like what she's saying, I don't trust any of these people. I'll be honest. I just don't. I just think they see the wind. I think they have legitimate problems with Trump. I do think Greene, for example, is an America first-er and she's always been. I think she's very committed to the Epstein issues and I think she is. I think she's sincere in that and you can hear it goes way back and I go way back to read her. But then when it's accompanied by this other stuff, I think it's going to be a very hard road back for everybody.
Speaker 2:
[21:09] But let me just call out a distinction. I struggle with the same thing you're struggling with. You have more license I think because you're a journalist. And so getting Marjorie Teller-Green on with Kara Swisher and talking to her and putting in, you're a great interviewer, you're a much better interviewer than me. Knowing how to forcefully push back, you are great at that. But I'll give you an example. I don't think Ben would ever stalk people who came to testify in front of Congress who were Parkland shooter survivors and follow them for four blocks, accusing them of lying and being crisis actors. I don't see Ben Shapiro ever doing something like that. At the end of the day, this is your call. And people can decide that, all right, if you're platforming-
Speaker 1:
[21:51] That's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about more as our country, like when do we let it go? Like that's going to be, the reason I'm asking is, I just did this incredible interview with this dead, it's like, when does it-
Speaker 2:
[22:03] What's the statute of limitations and when do you have people in it back then?
Speaker 1:
[22:05] When do all of us have to just leave Trump behind us and all the bad, and I blame him, but I blame ourselves because it's really hard. And the jumping, like, listen, I got like attacked for saying, Reese Witherspoon was just saying, try AI.
Speaker 2:
[22:24] That was just stupid.
Speaker 1:
[22:25] It was weird, but I also get it, like the rage about it's where it's coming.
Speaker 2:
[22:30] That's the machine looking for soft tissue to pretend they're virtuous. That's stupid.
Speaker 1:
[22:33] So what? Yeah, but you know, the right virtue, you virtue, we all do.
Speaker 2:
[22:36] That's everybody, everybody who's angry about AI. There's different, this is complex, right?
Speaker 1:
[22:42] I get it. That's all I'm saying, is I get where it's coming from. I get where it's coming from, and so I discount it. And sometimes, you know, I was talking to Claire this morning about something, Skoll was being mad about his socks or something like that. And I said to her, we were driving to school and she goes, oh yeah, he was really mad about the socks. I said, you know, he wasn't mad about the socks. He was mad because I had been away for a few days and he wanted me to drive into school and I'm driving you. And I said, sometimes people are mad about things that have nothing to do with.
Speaker 2:
[23:09] For a six-year-old, I couldn't have that conversation with my 18-year-old.
Speaker 1:
[23:13] And it was an interesting conversation.
Speaker 2:
[23:14] Should we bring up Freud or Jungian resentment?
Speaker 1:
[23:17] No, I just used, Claire is so smart. It's crazy.
Speaker 2:
[23:21] Let's watch Frozen.
Speaker 1:
[23:23] Let's watch Frozen 2. But it's just, I think we should be talking as much like, what do we have to do to get back to some level of disagreement? And I do think, there's no question that the Greens, the Shapiros, the Owens, Megan Kelly, and definitely people on the left too, who I don't listen to as much, which is interesting, have tried to poke at us and make us really dislike each other in a way that I think has been very dangerous. And at some point, there has to be some level of reckoning over that.
Speaker 2:
[23:57] That's the right word.
Speaker 1:
[23:58] You know, it's a reckoning. And what is that reckoning is really important.
Speaker 2:
[24:02] Well, three points. There's some nuance here. I would not group all of those people into the same group. I think there's different levels of mendaciousness and disingenuous and saying hateful things for money. The right word. So the first is what I'll call camera culture or forgiveness. I think in a culture where everyone's following each other around, where everyone's tweets live forever, if we don't expand the aperture of forgiveness, we're just all going to fucking hate each other. I say stupid shit all the time. I'm putting out 14 fucking hours a week of content. I'm shooting from the hip. If an 18-year-old shows up to a protest on campus and says, from the river to the sea, not understanding how some people perceive that, I don't want to kick him out of school. I don't want to ruin his career. I don't want to contact JP Morgan, which some people want to do and make sure his summer internship is rescinded. We have to get to a level of more forgiveness in a culture where there's incentive to make a cartoon of people's comments and press on the soft tissue and be outraged behind our computers. We have gone so far from that. I'm trying to do that. I'm trying not to call out people for clicks when I see an opportunity. I'm trying to take the temperature down. The word you bring up though and it's different is reckoning. That is, I do not think this nation heals until there is some form of reckoning. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Nancy Pelosi should discourage their profits from insider trading. The people who were in charge or supervisors of ICE in Minneapolis were an ICU nurse, somehow ended up with 10 bullets in his person. Those people should be hauled in front of committees and punished. I'm not saying maybe they go to jail. When there are people, when the children of our commerce secretary are taking $500 million from Gulf nations in exchange for favors and geopolitical advantage, they should discourage those profits and be put on trial. There needs to be a reckoning here. At the same time, with respect to what people say or their views or being incendiary or playing into a far left or a far right media ecosystem that then elevates it online, we need to massively increase the aperture around forgiveness.
Speaker 1:
[26:23] Yeah. I think, well, that's well said. See, we've had a good discussion about this. We're still getting dragged online and I get dragged with you. Thanks, Scott.
Speaker 2:
[26:30] I think you should do the interview with me. I would tune in for the interview with Marjorie Taylor Green. I would love to see what you said and how you approach it. I think that would be- One of the reasons I would not interview MTG is, I don't feel like I have the skills to handle that interview.
Speaker 1:
[26:44] Well, yeah, it's hard because it's part of me, I'm like, go girl, and part of me is like, really some of the heinous things you've done, shall I? It's a difficult thing because I'm like, you very clearly have issues with Jewish people. You'd have to have an honest conversation. You'd have to be open to an honest conversation instead of just clap, clap, clap, we forgive you.
Speaker 2:
[27:05] Can I give you a couple of real-world examples? I was supposed to go on Bill Maher, and I found out that Steve Bannon was one of the panelists.
Speaker 1:
[27:12] You did, you removed yourself.
Speaker 2:
[27:13] I said, this guy made what looked like to me a Nazi salute. A lot of people say, no, he didn't. If I had more skills, I could handle that conversation. I don't have those skills. As a non to my mother, I feel like I would have to fucking say something to him on live TV. I do not want to hijack Bill Maher show, and I don't know how to thread that needle, so I backed out. I was invited to go on Steve Bartlett's podcast tomorrow. I was supposed to be on with Eric Schmidt on a discussion on AI. I have a lot of respect for the brain of Eric Schmidt. I would learn a lot. I'm like, I'm in, and they're like, Eric can't do it. Can you come on in this panel with Sankar Chank? Every time I see that guy, he's yelling. I don't want to get into a yelling match with anybody.
Speaker 1:
[28:00] You went on that Piers when I told you not to.
Speaker 2:
[28:02] Well, I didn't know he was going to ambush me with some far right weirdo.
Speaker 1:
[28:07] Yeah.
Speaker 2:
[28:08] By the way, I like Piers and he's been very generous to me. I called the producer and I said, never again, don't call me. You didn't warn me that you were going to bring on some right-wing weirdo to try and say to call me desperate and un-American. I don't need that shit. It wasn't a civil conversation. It was you just trying to get the YouTube algorithm to have a call-out moment such that you'd get another $40 from AdSense. I'm not going to engage in that. At the same time, I'm not going to get on with, I think that guy is far left, who every time I see him is yelling. A lot of yelling. What good does that do me? What good does that do the ecosystem or any sense of civil discourse that this nation needs to move toward?
Speaker 1:
[28:51] Yeah. Well, we'll see how it goes. It'll be interesting.
Speaker 2:
[28:54] I'm so indignant right now.
Speaker 1:
[28:56] What?
Speaker 2:
[28:56] I'm so indignant right now. What do you call a black man on the moon?
Speaker 1:
[29:02] Oh no, don't. Please don't. I'm going to have to fire you soon. What?
Speaker 2:
[29:06] An astronaut, you fucking racist.
Speaker 1:
[29:08] Oh, I love it. That guy is amazing.
Speaker 2:
[29:10] That guy is amazing.
Speaker 1:
[29:11] He's amazing. Like, oh, all right.
Speaker 2:
[29:13] They make $150,000 a year.
Speaker 1:
[29:15] Who was the person who said I wouldn't fly with a black pilot? Was it Tucker? One of them.
Speaker 2:
[29:19] No, no, no. It was Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 1:
[29:21] Was it Kirk?
Speaker 2:
[29:21] Yeah, that one. He was making a point around DEI that he thinks there's- Oh, God. By the way-
Speaker 1:
[29:25] Elon's done it too.
Speaker 2:
[29:25] Just so you know how airlines-
Speaker 1:
[29:27] See, I'm not forgiving that.
Speaker 2:
[29:28] How airlines handle DEI. They do widen the aperture in terms of who makes it into the applicant pool. But any pilot, female, male, black, white, Latino, has to pass the exact same test at the same level.
Speaker 1:
[29:39] It's ridiculous. It's fucking ridiculous. Those things, I'm sorry, I'm not going to be forgiving. Anyway, that pilot is amazing. All right, we're moving on.
Speaker 2:
[29:46] I didn't mean to sound defensive. I'm going to get hacked a lot in the last 24 hours.
Speaker 1:
[29:50] I know, but you know what? It's good to talk about because everyone wants me to dump you.
Speaker 2:
[29:53] Everyone wants you to dump me.
Speaker 1:
[29:55] I'm not doing it.
Speaker 2:
[29:57] I'm just telling you today.
Speaker 1:
[29:59] Today, today. Scott, did I have an effective and substantive conversation about the issue?
Speaker 2:
[30:06] Everyone wants you.
Speaker 1:
[30:07] I'm just telling you. All right, I'm moving on. Speaking of people we may have to forgive. Apple will have a new CEO for the first time in 15 years come September. Tim Cook is stepping down as CEO and will move into a new role as Apple's executive chairman. Trump praised Cook in a post on True Social also saying, quote, I was very impressed with myself to have the head of Apple calling to kiss my ass unquote. Unfortunately, this was accurate. John Ternes, the head of Apple's hardware engineering will succeed Cook, first product person running the company in a while. He's been with the company for 25 years overseeing the engineering of the iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Talk about the legacy and you will have to include being tainted by this relationship with Trump, including recently the statue and the Melania thing. Ternes is joining Apple as the company is fighting for a space in the AI race and product innovation. Talk a little bit about predictions for the Ternes era and looking back at the Cook era. May I start? I have to say, he's 10X the value of the company. When Steve gave him the reins and then died, everyone thought it was curtains for the company and that has not been the case. He has been innovative with AirPods and watch and just not as sexy as Steve Jobs has been or as visionary. I think he's been a great leader for them. That said, he was tarnished by all the China manufacturing stuff for sure. Because he's a logistics guy, he was maybe too much of an automaton on those human rights issues. Then the President Trump stuff is not a great look, but I think he was taking one for the team, would be my guess in that regard. As a person, I really like him. He's a really calm person. I think he could have been slightly more outspoken about gay issues, but that's his choice. Again, I don't force gay people to have to talk about it, but he's a good role model. Probably could have talked a little bit more about it. That's my only, but that's again his choice. I get why people don't want to. So your thoughts.
Speaker 2:
[32:05] I think people's careers are the second in the blink of the corporate world and the universe, that second 35 millimeters, right? No one gets all 35 millimeters perfect, and Tim Cook's running at 34.5. So to not, this is his legacy. Tim Cook is the most successful successor in corporate history. He, talk about a guy that was set up to fail by virtue of the idolatry of the person who was taking over for it. There were immediately second guessing Tim Cook. And the record.
Speaker 1:
[32:37] His record was pretty amazing. The record itself, not just idolatry.
Speaker 2:
[32:40] Yeah, it's like, okay, who inherits Jesus' mandate? Steve Jobs was the new Jesus because we had shifted from idolizing our athletes and our government officials to the idolatry of innovators, as identified and marked by Steve Jobs. And then who was taken from us early like Jesus. I mean, it was just, he was, he has become a mythical godlike figure. He certainly has. So any guy taking, you want to talk about the biggest shoes to fill in history and what did Tim Cook do? He took the stock up tenfold. Operationally, he built the most, probably the most robust, impressive supply chain in history. He figured out a way in a foreign nation to take advantage of the collision between advanced manufacturing and low wages and somehow get 2,000 parts to one place or different places for assembly and build a supercomputer for $400 that if you tried to build it anywhere else would cost $4,000. He figured it out. He also created, people say he wasn't a new product guy. My favorite technology in history, in history, these things.
Speaker 1:
[33:51] AirPods, you love your AirPods.
Speaker 2:
[33:53] AirPods, if they were their own business, would be a Fortune 50 company. I think of it as the most successful piece of jewelry in history in the highest margin. In addition, what he decided to do was to say, okay, I'm not going to launch new products. I'm going to take existing products and applications and take a phone and evolve it to a supercomputer, where you have payments, where you have music.
Speaker 1:
[34:17] So an ecosystem is what you're talking about, creating an ecosystem.
Speaker 2:
[34:20] But he took the iPhone from a phone to a supercomputer in your pocket, there was media, transactions.
Speaker 1:
[34:27] Yeah, ecosystem.
Speaker 2:
[34:29] It became the iPhone pulled off the impossible. That is, if you want really high margins like Ferrari, it's a niche with limited volumes. If you want super high volumes like a Toyota, you have to price it to get low margins. The iPhone is the only product in history that's managed to get the production volume of a Toyota with the margins of a Ferrari. The iPhone has created more gross margin dollars than any product in history. Arguably speaking, the iPhone is the most successful product in history. There's been nothing like it.
Speaker 1:
[35:01] Nothing.
Speaker 2:
[35:02] He did it with a lot of grace. There wasn't anyone shitposting or leaving or filing lawsuits. If you want to talk about Apple's ascent past, say Samsung or Android, go buy a phone, an Android phone. You're talking to a guy with a name tag named Roy, who's living with his parents in a bad place with bad carpeting.
Speaker 1:
[35:22] They're still not great, I'll tell you that. They're still awful. There's some beautiful form factors that I like. I wish there was more.
Speaker 2:
[35:29] No, I mean the retail, the distribution for Android.
Speaker 1:
[35:32] Got it. Yeah.
Speaker 2:
[35:32] You go into an Apple store, if they opened a coffee counter in the Apple store, it would probably be the highest grossing retail in the world. By the way, it became the highest grossing per square foot retail, besting Tiffany in the early aughts.
Speaker 1:
[35:47] Let me ask you his negatives. What would you say? I would definitely think the controversies around China, certainly, but they seem in the rear view mirror. What about the Trump relationship?
Speaker 2:
[35:58] The China one, look, he had to take a huge risk on a company that we had geopolitical tensions with. He couldn't look into a crystal ball, and quite frankly, it looks as if we've survived it. I would argue that China and the US have a vested interest in figuring out a way to get along, because Apple is so important to China, and China is so important to this US company called Apple. I think cross-commerce, I forget the German word for it, is firms that trade with each other are just less likely to go to war with each other. I'm a huge fan of what he has pulled off in China. Trump stuff, we were very vocal about it. It pissed me off. I think Tim Cook, there are a few people who have benefited more from the American system and civil rights and gay rights and rule of law and systemic laws around business and a lack of favoritism and a lack of tariffs than Tim Cook. And yet, you're right, he played the game. His priority was shareholders, so he was strategic and kissed the guy's ass. I get it. It would have been nice if he had been a little bit more forceful and pushback, but the reality is neither did the other 499 S&P 500 CEOs. So quite frankly, I think he gets a hall pass.
Speaker 1:
[37:09] Well, you don't see Nadella there, you don't see like-
Speaker 2:
[37:14] Nadella went to the meeting.
Speaker 1:
[37:15] He went to the meeting, but I'm talking about the-
Speaker 2:
[37:18] He didn't go to the Melania premiere.
Speaker 1:
[37:20] He didn't, and he didn't bring him a present. And just, I thought it was tainting of his long, very decent tenure. And I think I have a feeling I know why he did it. It's like it had to be done, essentially. I have to kiss up to him. And of course, Trump returned the favor by saying he kissed my ass, which is just like typical of Trump.
Speaker 2:
[37:39] Well, this is the question I would ask. Of all the CEOs on a balanced scorecard of having a good team, fostering leadership, of showing grace, not posting other people, who scores higher than Tim Cook in the history of business?
Speaker 1:
[37:54] Cook or Nadella? I would say Cook or Nadella. I think Nadella would pull that company down.
Speaker 2:
[37:57] So we got a 99 point. He got 1590 on the SAT. He got one question wrong.
Speaker 1:
[38:02] I mean, this guy- Okay, I'm just asking the question. I would agree with you.
Speaker 2:
[38:06] This guy is a first-ballot hall of fame.
Speaker 1:
[38:10] A 100 percent.
Speaker 2:
[38:11] Corporate and American citizen.
Speaker 1:
[38:13] 100 percent.
Speaker 2:
[38:14] And when people leave the stage, everyone should just be-
Speaker 1:
[38:17] He's also leaving at the right time, by the way.
Speaker 2:
[38:19] Yeah, he's stepping down. He's not clinging to power like an African dictator.
Speaker 1:
[38:23] That's a hate crime. So, Ternus, very quickly. Predictions for the Ternus era?
Speaker 2:
[38:28] Again, talk about big shoes to fall. You know him better than I do. The only thing I find fascinating about this guy is that he tinkers with go-karts and he's a hardware guy. So, it says more about the board. They said, we're about hardware, we're not about services, and this is about trying to innovate about products. You know him better than I do.
Speaker 1:
[38:47] I don't know him more. I've met him a couple. He didn't stick out compared to some of the others there that were in the contention. But I do think having a product person is really important, because they've got to really evolve the iPhone in ways, and I still have to get some glasses thing going. I know you're against it, but there's some lighter glasses thing that has to get going. I think they haven't been great in the home. They've been okay. Then of course, how AI is integrated into all these products is going to be with privacy and safety, especially given the rage about AI. I know you all think AI is not going to happen, but it's going to happen. So I think that's, I think we'll see. I think it, you know, again, this is a group of people that have been there forever. And I would have liked to see maybe a little bit more shake up. But I see why they don't. Why would they? Because it's working. And so he's, you know, he's younger, he's more vibrant and we'll see how he does. Anyway, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, new details about SpaceX IPO.
Speaker 2:
[39:51] Support for the show comes from BMC. Before you scale AI to every corner of your business, before you supercharge your agents with AI ready data, before you trust your entire business to AI, BMC first. BMC is here to help you look past the hype of the AI revolution and look toward an orderly AI evolution. For decades, BMC has powered the systems the world can't afford to fail with automation, orchestration and control at enterprise scale. And today, they are the automation engine for the AI era, the foundation for the agentic enterprise at scale. And as companies seek to harness the power of automation to streamline and accelerate their most complex and critical business processes, BMC is ready to partner with them. Because BMC is uniquely qualified to solve the orchestration data and execution challenges that AI creates. Before AI, before automation, before orchestration, BMC first. How can you change the course of your business when you partner with BMC? Learn more at bmc.com.
Speaker 1:
[40:52] Support for this show comes from Virgin Atlantic. Flying to your dream destination can be a once in a lifetime feeling and knowing your vacation is hours away can really feel exciting. It's a whole reason why Virgin Atlantic wants to make that feeling even better. Virgin Atlantic was born from a desire to bring back the joy of flying and they've been that way ever since. Their beautiful stylish new planes, mood lit in soft purple and pink, make you feel like a VIP before you've been settled into your seat. Their flight attendants read warm welcome attentive one to one service like no other. Customers in all cabins can choose their main meal before they fly. You can pre-order a range of menu options in advance and look forward to something delicious waiting aboard. If you're seeking a moment of well-being before takeoff, two luxurious pop-up wellness experiences have also arrived at the London Heathrow Clubhouse and enhancements to their award-winning clubhouse can bring you elevated comfort, modern style, and a sense of calm before you fly. Go to virginatlantic.com to learn more. Support for this show comes from Harvey AI. The future of law is agentic, not just tools that assist, but AI agents that navigate complex matters. Harvey was built on legal agents that analyze, draft, and execute with precision. But great lawyers don't just complete tasks, they strategize. That's why Harvey created agents that can do the work from end to end. They build a plan, pull from secure data sources, run sub-agents in parallel, and draft the work product ready for your review. So you can delegate the work and own the judgment. Harvey agents support work across fund formation litigation, regulatory compliance, M&A, and more, adapting to the complexity of each matter and the way your team actually works. Trusted by more than 60% of the AM Law 100 and leading Fortune 500 legal teams, Harvey is the AI operating system designed specifically for legal work, helping teams move faster with greater precision and confidence. Harvey, AI tailored for law. Learn more at harvey.ai. Scott, we're back as SpaceX blockbuster IPO approaches. The company is doubling down on AI, striking a deal with Cursor, a coding startup for a possible $60 billion acquisition. Also some new details from the IPO filing. Elon and a group of insiders will have control of the company through a dual class stock structure. What a surprise. Elon increased his stake in SpaceX last year, buying $1.4 billion worth of stock from current and former employees. He stands to get 60 million more in shares if SpaceX market cap reaches $6.6 trillion and the company completes a plan to build data centers in space. Slight hitch, the IPO prospectus warns that data centers and plans for the moon and Mars rely on unproven tech and might not be commercially viable. Let me just talk about these plans. In other news, Tesla is out with his latest earnings reporting better than expected numbers, but still way below levels from a few years ago. One bright spot, the company said demand around the world is growing, obviously because of rising fuel prices, increased demand for EVs, and they're the front runner in that. Shares initially rose in extended trading, but gave up those gains since Elon warned that significant increase in capital, CapEx, which he noted was going to start at $25 billion for robots and all sorts of large ambitious projects. I don't really care that he has those cool, if it work great, if they don't, too bad shareholders. Again, Tesla, the car business is not the business anymore, so he's got to reach for something else. I don't fault them for that. Any thoughts about the IPO and then Tesla?
Speaker 2:
[44:34] Well, the news is there, acquisition or announced acquisition of Cursor and my sense is that XAI has not figured out a way to develop a revenue model or a product that garners revenue.
Speaker 1:
[44:47] Well, all the founders have left except for Elon, I think. There's nobody left.
Speaker 2:
[44:51] Cursor is their attempt, I think, to bolt on a front end that has a commercially viable product.
Speaker 1:
[44:56] Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 2:
[44:56] The other observation I would make is that, you know, liars use statisticians lie and liars use statistics. Some of these numbers are just such bullshit. So when OpenAI said they were raising money at $850 billion, okay, call it a trillion if you guarantee me a 17% preferred return and I have a liquidity preference. I don't care what number you put on the press release. And then, you know, I mean, Anthropic here now is worth more than OpenAI, but according to OpenAI's press release, there were two and a half times. The number that's a lie here that I'd want to know more information about is a $60 billion acquisition price. And I would bet it structured something along the lines of the following that if we go public and get a $1.5 or $2 trillion market cap, we're going to give you options for 3% of the company, which is $60 billion. They don't have $60 billion in cash anywhere.
Speaker 1:
[45:50] They don't, yeah. And also Andreessen's all mobbed up with that one, I think, and the whole bunch. They're all the same people.
Speaker 2:
[45:55] But they want to put out a headline number of $60 billion to note more value in this thing than is probably there. Let me be clear, no one is cashing a check for $60 billion right now. So look, I think that Moscow with respect to business and what I'll call perception and pulling a narrative around getting access to cheap capital to pull the future forward, he's likely the best in history. Maybe the exception of, I don't know, Netflix and Amazon played that game really, really deftly as well. But his ability to kind of continue to say, no, look over here as I stuff the rabbit into the hat. Oh wait, you figured out Tesla is like just a mediocre auto company with low market. We look over here. Oh, SpaceX has only got 12 billion in revenues and one and a half. Oh wait, look over here. I mean, it's just, and integrating space connectivity, broadband, satellites, AI, autonomous-
Speaker 1:
[46:50] Data centers in space. Not a bad idea.
Speaker 2:
[46:53] It is like every eight-year-old boy's dream. I mean, it's like a company in vision for an eight-year-old, but he is very good at this. He's very good at creating one plus one plus a little bit of jazz hands equals one and a half trillion dollars. I look at this acquisition, makes no fucking sense. It's bullshit, the $60 billion number. It's probably a good idea because XAI needs more human capital and it needs something. Quite frankly, it just needs more product management.
Speaker 1:
[47:23] He has to hide things in things. That's why Twitter went into Grok, into XAI because he had to hide it in there, the losses and the declines and whatever. It's still hugely influential for him. Same thing with this is his Grok thing, like all the people who he started it and touted it with have left. So he makes a shit into a very tasty shit sandwich sometimes. You're just going to get what you get with this guy. He's going to always advantage himself. He wants to do cool things. He's going to take your money to pay for it. These numbers are insane, but they'll probably go up. So we can't say don't invest, but the fact of the matter is, are there going to be a million robots in their homes? By the way, there's a million movies of him talking about full self-driving. I didn't even get into this here, but it didn't happen. Like everything he said was going to happen didn't happen, but he's really good at raising money. He's really good at innovating certain things, but then he moves on. And so I think you just have to go with, and then he has a starlink in the middle of it. And so that's what you get with this guy. The question is, is it rabbits and silliness, or is it the real thing? Does it hardly matter given the spheres go up, right?
Speaker 2:
[48:46] See, this is a problem. When you control a board and you have made all the board members a lot of money, you end up doing deals that have no fiduciary oversight. And this shit is boring, but no one pays attention to this stuff. It was a share for share deal when SpaceX acquired XAI, and they valued XAI at 76 bucks and SpaceX at 527. If SpaceX had a board that could push back, they would say, no, XAI is not worth in any way, 270 billion, which is the value they're putting on Twitter with an AI veneer. No, it's not worth that. So we're not taking that dilution. But because Elon owns equally large amounts in each, he doesn't care.
Speaker 1:
[49:33] He doesn't care. That's why he's gonna have control, right?
Speaker 2:
[49:36] But meanwhile, SpaceX shareholders in my view are getting to try and bail out XAI.
Speaker 1:
[49:42] And Twitter before that.
Speaker 2:
[49:43] And Twitter, and bail out.
Speaker 1:
[49:44] And Tesla at some point.
Speaker 2:
[49:45] And is bailing out Twitter shareholders, who he promised, back me in this ridiculous overpay of $44 billion. And I will figure out a way to get you your money back. But the problem is there's no one who has, who can be a real fiduciary here and stand up for the shareholders they're supposed to represent. Because Musk is in charge. See above two class, two class shareholder company.
Speaker 1:
[50:06] Oh, great. No, I think you've got it just right. And you know what? I hope he gets a million robots. I've heard his robotic stuff is revolutionary, but like just land it. Land the fucking plane, as they say. But you know, it doesn't matter. These shares are gonna jump. They're just, he has this incredible ability to do so. He's the, Steve Jobs used to supposedly have this reality distortion field, except they actually delivered real company products. I think he's got a reality distortion field. Sometimes things happen, sometimes they don't. All right, we're gonna go on a quick break. When we come back, we'll do a quick roundup of the rest of this week's news. There's so much news.
Speaker 2:
[50:44] Support for the show comes from Back Market. Listen, there's a lot of ads out there telling you to buy new products. I'm at a point in my life where I'd say two-thirds of the things I buy, I think, do I really need this? I'd like to go somewhere at Asylum Retreat and just live off a plate and a fork, but that has nothing to do with this ad. It's the same thing with tech ads, but Back Market gives you a smarter way to buy tech, bringing personal and home electronics back to life through professional refurbishment at a much lower price than new. It's all they do. Back Market offers a range of high-quality phones, computers, gaming consoles, vacuum cleaners, and even iPods. All of the tech at Back Market has been inspected and restored by best-in-class professionals to ensure it is in perfect working condition. They offer a one-year warranty and 30-day returns. And not only is Back Market refurbished tech more affordable than buying new, it's also more sustainable. E-waste is the fastest growing waste stream in the world, and Back Market is on a mission to reduce the environmental toll of the fast-tech industry by making refurbished the smarter, more confident choice designed to use fewer raw materials, waste less, and emit less than new. Find your next phone for less on backmarket.com. Support for the show comes from Anthropic. Not every question has an easy answer, and when you're looking through one of those problems, you want to partner to bounce ideas off of and figure out where the deeper issues lie. That's where Claude can help. Claude is the AI for minds that don't stop at good enough. It's a collaborator that actually understands your entire workflow and thinks with you. Whether you're debugging code at midnight or strategizing your next business move, Claude extends your thinking to tackle the problems that matter. Plus, Claude's research capabilities can have comprehensive, reliable analysis with proper citations turning hours of research into minutes. And Cowork brings Claude's code at Gentoo Power to your desktop. No terminal required, just point it to the folder on your computer or add connectors, including Google Drive and Gmail. Describe what you need and it handles the rest. You can queue up tasks and come back to finished work. Ready to tackle bigger problems? Get started with Claude today at Claude.ai.pivot. That's Claude.ai.pivot and check out Claude Pro, which includes access to all of the features mentioned in today's episode, claude.ai/pivot.
Speaker 1:
[52:50] Support for this show comes from Indeed. When you're looking for talent, Indeed sponsored jobs can be just the boost you need. It matches you with quality candidates fast so you don't need to spend months searching for that new hire. According to their data, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed are 95% more likely to report a hire than non-sponsored jobs. Join the 3.3 million employers worldwide that use Indeed to connect with quality talent that fits their needs. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results. When you need the right person to cut through the chaos, this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. Listeners to this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves at indeed.com/podcast. Just go to indeed.com/podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. That's indeed.com/podcastterms and conditions apply hiring. Do it the right way with Indeed. Scott, we're back. Now let's end with a news rundown of other stories I'd like to hit quickly. First, Health Secretary RFK Jr. made quite an impression, as usual, this week testifying before Congress, besides heavy breathing on the microphone, which was disturbing. Let's hear a clip of him defending Trump math while Senator Elizabeth Warren tries to ask a question. There's two ways of calculating percentage.
Speaker 4:
[54:22] If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to 10, that's a 600% reduction.
Speaker 1:
[54:28] He just kept going on the math. Elizabeth Warren wasn't having any of it. Meanwhile, a report showing the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines has been blocked from being published in the CDC and prevention's scientific journalists the second time they're doing trying to pretend these vaccines didn't work. Thoughts very quickly?
Speaker 2:
[54:46] I think Hegsath is doing more damage to people outside of the US than any person in recent history. I think RFK Jr is going to do more, cause more death disease and disability amongst Americans than any person in recent history. President Trump has to take credit for that. But when you listen to the guy talk, he absolutely has no quali- If there's one, I mean, you're doing a show on this. If there's one place you need to defer to the experts and folks, expertise is an actual thing, it's around health. They have clearly decided, all right, this guy is a fucking loose cannon talking about raccoons, genitalia. And they have basically said, keep this guy out of the news. What's interesting is that if he had ovaries, they would have fired him by now. I mean, they seem to be quick to fire women.
Speaker 1:
[55:34] Women. So the dirty mouth lady left the labor department.
Speaker 2:
[55:37] I mean, the three people now that have been let go, all women. Anyway-
Speaker 1:
[55:41] There was one guy failing, who was fighting with Hegseth, but go ahead.
Speaker 2:
[55:45] The Navy secretary.
Speaker 1:
[55:46] Yeah.
Speaker 2:
[55:47] Yeah. So look, I think RFK Jr is, and this word's overused, RFK Jr is dangerous.
Speaker 1:
[55:54] Murderous.
Speaker 2:
[55:54] And no one loves RFK Jr more than measles. And we're about to see, in my opinion, we've already seen it, a potential comeback of some of the most devastating diseases which we had eradicated because of just junk science, head up your ass, beliefs and conspiracy theories. The fact that this guy has been charged with the health of America and oversees the CDC, is going to set us back years, if not decades.
Speaker 1:
[56:24] Decades, decades. And also, he's just such a suck up to Trump, except, let me just tell you, he's running for president too, by the way.
Speaker 2:
[56:30] They're all running for president. They all wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and say, hello, madame or Mr. President.
Speaker 1:
[56:35] All of these people. He really cannot be our president. Like, oh God, if I had to pick. I don't know what I would do. And I'm not going to have to pick, I won't pick any of them. Very quickly, crypto billionaire Justin Sun has sued the Trump family's crypto venture accusing criminal extortion for freezing digital tokens over his refusal to invest more money with the company over true social devin newness has departed as the company CEO after four years in their role, where they made $5 million a year and one year he was paid $46 million. He's an incompetent moron. Thoughts on that? Just what a surprise, Justin Sun. You tried to pay to get out of an SEC thing and they fucked you. What a surprise. Mobsters are going to mob. I don't know what else to say. The Witcofs are involved somewhere in here, one of the children.
Speaker 2:
[57:19] It goes to the notion of reckoning. I think it should be done to the letter of the law. But I think right now, many of the people running for president or just many of our fine people serving in government in the Congress should be outlining and putting out plans to work with to coordinate with states AG. And Witcofs' kids should not be getting $500 million investments from the Gulf, from who is meeting with a cabinet secretary.
Speaker 1:
[57:47] I think they're getting rid of him.
Speaker 2:
[57:48] That somewhere has to be a crime. And I think we have to start signaling we are going to pursue these crimes. And the statute of limitations, I believe, on the emoluments, whatever it is, this is probably, this is probably, I bet there's some very serious crimes this could potentially under defense threats. So, but the fact that I went to an event where Stephen Witcoff, I spoke right after him, I just can't get over in the vice president, vice president Gore was there. I mean, this guy is engaging in naked criminality. And so, and by the way, I don't think it should be political retribution. I think we also should go after some Democrats specifically around insider trading.
Speaker 1:
[58:32] Well, let me get to that. For the Prediction Market News, Cal she is fined and suspended three congressional candidates, not both Democrats and Republicans for betting on their own races. That's not allowed over there at Cal she. Thoughts there that all these rules have to go in place. A lot of companies are doing them now. Do not be do not be betting on stuff like this. It is insider trading. I'm glad Cal she called it out as that thoughts.
Speaker 2:
[58:57] It was a brilliant move on Cal she's part. I mean, okay. So there's good and really bad here. The good is that Cal she has said, and this will cost them, the politicians will come out against them. They said, you're not allowed to do this. We're finding you. That's the good part. Good for them. Smart move politically, strategically for Tarek, the CEO of Cal she. This is what's wrong with it. We shouldn't need companies to regulate themselves. We, the fact that, you know, the marketplace hates a void. It hates a vacuum. There's so little regulation that the company itself is finding people. It's like, what if all of a sudden Chevron said, okay, you're manufacturing our oil and putting too much carbon into the air because we are so fucking freaked out about the lack of an EPA. That's where we are right now. The only regulation that's come down the pike in this stuff has usually been regulation to stop regulation and so when companies feel, everybody hopes that a company is going to weigh in and regulate themselves. That is not the way to run industry or a country.
Speaker 1:
[60:03] Not at all. They are in some cases. Several companies have put in rules about this, but it's insider trading is all we have to.
Speaker 2:
[60:11] But the fact that just gives you a sense for the fact there's no sheriff here. It's basically, to a certain extent, it's like vigilantism that because there's no sheriff around, we have to enforce the law. So, good on Kalshi, but it's a terrible indictment on our lack of regulatory infrastructure.
Speaker 1:
[60:30] One of them said he was doing it for a reason to show how bad it was. Give me a break. Anyway, one more quick break. We'll be back for Predictions.
Speaker 5:
[60:42] I'm Mitch Furse, two-time INDIBRU-CELL champion, championship MVP, and forward for the US Women's National Team. Before I went pro, I graduated from Harvard with a degree in psychology, which comes in handy more than you think. Any athlete pursuing greatness knows there's a certain mentality you have to have. What people don't know is what that costs. In my podcast, Confessions of an Elite Athlete, I sit down with the best athletes in the world and explore the psychology, mindset, and unseen battles on the path to greatness. Take a seat and learn from the confessions of an elite athlete on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 6:
[61:29] Honest to God, like, f***ing skinny. I want to be jacked. Without context, tone and sculpt are rooted in diet culture. We're inheriting a lot of nonsense that makes specifically women feel like they have to shrink in order to expand. And I'm just saying, no, let's just like lift heavy s*** and like take up space. That's the expansion. I'm Reba Nartsun and this week on Project Swagger, I break down the strategies that helped me build confidence and feel at home in my body, especially after two babies. Listen now at Project Swagger, wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4:
[62:07] From Iran to Venezuela to China, what is driving President Trump's foreign policy?
Speaker 7:
[62:14] Both Russia and China are big losers if there's a transition in the nature of the Iranian government, which again is why I think we have to see this campaign through.
Speaker 4:
[62:23] I'm Jake Sullivan.
Speaker 8:
[62:24] And I'm John Finer. And we're the hosts of The Long Game, a weekly national security podcast. This week, Trump's former national security advisor, HR. McMaster, and deputy national security advisor, Matt Pottinger, join us.
Speaker 4:
[62:38] The episode is out now. Search for and follow The Long Game, wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1:
[62:48] Okay, Scott, we're going to do some predictions very quickly so people know Warner Brothers shareholders just proved the deal with Paramount, although it's facing a lot of regulatory scrutiny. I suspect it'll get through, but it's going to be a lot bumpier. That's going to be an interesting thing. There's a lot of pushback from Hollywood, all kinds of regulators. Even if it's just reached this step, I got my thing in the mail. I own some Warner shares. Thanks for the money, David. We'll see where it goes. I don't know. It might be a little rockier than people think, but they'll probably shove it through because they've only got a few months before Trump loses a lot of power. Your prediction?
Speaker 2:
[63:25] By the way, right now, in the prediction markets, it's saying that the likelihood of closes around 72 percent, which is less than I thought.
Speaker 1:
[63:34] Yeah.
Speaker 2:
[63:34] They're saying there's like a one in three chance it doesn't close.
Speaker 1:
[63:37] Yeah. There's some rockiness there. Anyway, go ahead.
Speaker 2:
[63:39] Yeah. My prediction is that when the SpaceX IPO goes out, you will see an almost, not an equivalent, but a proportionate decline in the value of Tesla. Because right now, investors are paying for that Elon premium, and that is an inflated multiple in exchange for Musk, Charisma, and Vision. Right now, Tesla's 4P is 185. That's 12 times higher than the auto industry. Basically, they're paying 12 times what anyone else is garnering in the auto industry for a car company that has posted sales declines for two years in a row. And abroad, BYD has surpassed Tesla's, the largest seller of EVs and eating away at its European share.
Speaker 1:
[64:23] New battery technology they're doing in China right now that looks really promising. Go ahead.
Speaker 2:
[64:27] In addition, RoboTaxi and Optimus are long-shot bets that may not pay off for five years, if at all. So essentially, all of a sudden, retail investors are going to have an opportunity to buy into some of that Elon vision and magic, but with SpaceX. And so I think that magic acolyte worship of that creates that 185 times earnings of Tesla, is going to massively deflate because I think all of that idolatry revenue is going to go into SpaceX.
Speaker 1:
[64:53] Oh, that's interesting. So boom. What if he merges it in? They need robots at their data centers in space.
Speaker 2:
[64:59] You've predicted that for a while.
Speaker 1:
[65:01] I was right about the last one.
Speaker 2:
[65:02] Yeah. Well, okay, that's a whole different ballgame. But assuming they maintain distinct capital structures, you're going to basically see just a massive transfer of market cap from Tesla to SpaceX.
Speaker 1:
[65:15] The stuffing gets knocked out of Tesla. They're not going to make the robots that are going to run the data centers in space?
Speaker 2:
[65:21] Look, I think industrialized robots are incredibly exciting. I think the notion that you're going to have a robot in your house bringing you your soup or whatever, I just don't see that happening for a long time.
Speaker 1:
[65:31] I'm going to have that for you when you're old, in case you're interested.
Speaker 2:
[65:33] I've already got a Filipino man named Manny with well-moisturized hands lined up.
Speaker 1:
[65:37] No, you're getting a robot named Barbara.
Speaker 2:
[65:40] You're going to push me around. You're going to have trouble sitting over the back of my wheelchair. I'll tell you dirty jokes and you'll tell me to shut up.
Speaker 1:
[65:46] I'll keep hitting you on the head. I can't believe you said that back in 2014.
Speaker 2:
[65:51] We're late for our podcast. They won a Webby 40 years ago.
Speaker 1:
[65:57] Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 2:
[65:58] We want to talk about the Webby's.
Speaker 1:
[65:59] Oh my God. We won both Webby, all of us and also Lost Boys got one, right? Is that correct?
Speaker 2:
[66:05] So you won for On with Kara Swisher.
Speaker 1:
[66:08] Interview.
Speaker 2:
[66:09] And Pivot won its third year in a row for Best Business Podcast. And my newsletter, No Mercy No Malice, won for Best Business Newsletter.
Speaker 1:
[66:18] It's a great business newsletter.
Speaker 2:
[66:20] Thank you. And Lost Boys won for Best Special Series, co-hosted with The Mooch. Five Webby wins between the two of us, Kara.
Speaker 1:
[66:29] Anyway, we appreciate that. We like the Webby's. We have fun with them. Anyway, that's a fun show. We want to hear from you. Send us your questions about business tech or whatever's on your mind. Go to nymag.com/pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-Pivot. Okay, that's the show. Very good show, Scott. That was a very good discussion. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2:
[66:46] I think where I came across is defensive.
Speaker 1:
[66:48] No, you didn't. No, you didn't. You didn't.
Speaker 2:
[66:50] I think I did.
Speaker 1:
[66:51] No, you didn't. No, it was called a discussion. Anyway.
Speaker 2:
[66:54] When will I be enough, Kara?
Speaker 1:
[66:56] Never. Thanks for listening to Pivot. Be sure to like and subscribe to our YouTube channel. We'll be back next week.
Speaker 2:
[67:04] Today's show is produced by Lara Neiman, Zoe Marcus, Taylor Griffin, and Todd Weissman. Ernie Unertide engineered this episode. Manolo Moreno edited the video. Thanks also to Dubrow's, Miss Severo and Dan Chalon. Nishak Khorra is Vox Media's executive producer of podcast. Make sure to follow Pivot on your favorite podcast platform. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com/pod. We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business.