Transcript of Dueling Presidential interviews, SpaceX’s big catch, Robotaxis, Uber buying Expedia?, Nuclear NIMBY

Freeberg's channeling Tim walls over there.

I know.

Wow. He's as exciting as Tim Walz.

Got your flannel on. Do you know what a venture capitalist is, Freeberg?

Oh, he's showing super gut.

Well, as of last week, when J Cal decided to turn all in into a commercial, I was actually going to do a super gut background. We're launching supergut nationwide in target this week. Any target in the United States, you can go into and pick up supergut, you can buy the GLP one booster. You can buy the prebiotic shake.

I have that, actually. Is that the chocolate or do you have the chocolate?

I mean, I like this one's chocolate.

Okay. Mocha's good, too. All right, let's get started.

Thanks for the support, JK.

I appreciate it. Of course, of course, of course.

We're cutting all this out.

No way. That's why I do this.

Next time, plug a company. I have a steak in. Let your winners ride, Rain Man.

David Sack.

And instead we open source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with it.

Love you at night.

Also, all in. Election night live stream is coming November 5. You can watch live. Sachs will be hosting that. We're doing it. You're hosting it. Your team said you're doing it, and so you'll either get to see.

Are you not going to Mar a Lago Sachs?

Well, if things continue to look good for Trump, I might go to Mar a lagoon.

Yeah.

Okay, so you're maybe.

Let's not commit sacks. You're a maybe. If you go to Mar a Lago, you're excused.

I can live stream from Mar a lagoon.

Absolutely amazing.

I'll go to Mar a Lago. That'd be fun. Yeah. If it looks good, I'll go. So maybe that's. Of course I'm invited. I talked to Jared.

As good as they do right now, then I think I'm gonna have to go to Mary.

We should all be in Mar a Lago.

It's gonna be a unique experience.

Oh, my God. Can you imagine being in Mar a Lago and he loses.

Oh, my God. That's why. That would be dog. Unless this thing is in the bag, it's got to be too big to rig. If it's too big to rig, I'm going to Mar a Lago.

Too big to rig.

Do you guys think polymarket is, like. Why do you think it's different from the polls? Are we talking about this today? Poly market's showing, like, 60 40 or 65 35 now, right?

Yeah. Because they're measuring different things. I've explained this before. Poly market is people betting on the outcome. So 58% think Trump's going to win, whereas the polls in a particular state show the percentage of how each person's going to vote. So if for sure you knew the election was 51.49, the betting markets would swing to 100.

But let me ask you this. So Nate Silver's model, which takes the poll from each state and builds in a kind of a monte, like a supermodel for the whole country, why is his estimate 50 50 right now while the poly market is betting at 60 40?

It's possible he's laggy in his estimates.

Got it.

In the betting markets. The betting markets seem to go based on momentum. So it indicates the swing in momentum and then the how do you think.

Things are going to, how do you think they're going to change after the interviews the last couple of days, Trump on Bloomberg and Kamala on Fox, do you think those are going to change anything?

I don't think so. I think it's all baked in now.

Well, Trump over the past few weeks seems to have had a surge owing to the fact that Kamala's interviews generally don't go well. So I think she started off a little behind, started doing interviews to catch up, and now she's a lot behind. I don't think the bear interview is going to help her.

Well, let me ask you this. So my observation as, I don't know, I'm not like a super political person or whatever, a party oriented person. I looked at a lot of the media on both sides, and it seems like everyone on the left says Kamala did an amazing job on Fox. She defended herself, she showed her skills and her competency. And then everyone on the right is like, she embarrassed herself, she fell apart. And then the same thing happened with the Trump interview on Bloomberg. People are like, on the left, they say, look at how he couldn't handle the interviewer and he fell apart and all his lies were exposed. And everyone on the right's like, look at him, you got a standing ovation. It's almost like everyone's just kind of like self asserting their beliefs that they already hold when they judge these people on these interview shows. At this point, is it already baked at this point? Like, is anyone actually going to change their view based on these interviews happening?

Well, the question is, what appeals to that small sliver of independence?

Yeah.

The question I would ask back to you is if the Bret beer interview was going so well for Kamala, why was her staff on the sidelines waving to try and end the interview that apparently they had, like four people waving and trying to cut the interview off?

Who said that was the case?

He did.

Riparian.

Yeah, it was like in Rocky four when Apollo Creed's corner is like, yelling, throw in the dance, throwing in the doll, throwing the damn. They couldn't wait to get off the stage after 26 minutes. I just think that if it was going that. Allegedly.

Allegedly, yeah.

I don't think Barbara is going to lie about that.

I don't know why he would lie about that.

Why would they get off the stage after 26 minutes if it was going so great? I'm not saying it went as horrible as some of the partisans on the other side are saying, but I don't think it went that great.

Do you give her any credit for going into the Lions den like she did?

Well, I think that she went, she did the interview precisely to get the talking point that she does adversarial interviews because that talking point was earning them. And so you saw, like, all of her fans in the media were saying, well, see, she can walk into the Lions den. But again, she did the shortest interview possible. I don't think she answered the questions directly. I think she filibustered a lot. She deflected a lot. I don't think she was particularly persuasive. I don't think she convinced anybody. So I think that what you saw there was somebody who just wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible to check the box on. Okay, does adversarial interviews Trump? On the other hand, he actually likes doing these things. The Bloomberg.

There's no filibustering there, right?

Well, no, he's christian filibuster.

Come on, anecdotes.

You can do the weave. You can do the anecdotes. But he's also very good at coming back on the interviewer when they get adversarial and the audience was with him, they gave him a standing ovation. He went for 64 minutes. Compared to her, 26. I just think there's no comparison. I think Trump is someone who relishes walking into the lions den and doing those interviews. I think Harris did it because she.

Felt like, what do you think, jamath? You see it or no, you have any opinion?

I watched the whole interview. It was clear in the interview, he mentioned the fact that he was being waved off, and then he said it after the fact as well. That's not alleged. I think that that did happen. I would say two things. I thought that she was composed and she maintained her cool. So I think from a stylistic perspective, I thought that she did well. From a substance perspective, it was pretty lacking because if you actually listened to the answers, there was just a ton of non answers. And they were two very basic questions that I think a lot of people, even if you're not a swing voter, I think would probably want to know the answer to. Meaning, did she have any regrets about what's happened in the last three and a half years? Did she have any regrets about what she's done on the border? Has she not noticed that Biden was wavering before he was hot swapped? I think that you could have predicted that these questions were going to come. So I think I was surprised that there wasn't a crisp answer that they had practiced for that. The second thing I'll say is then David is right.

Everybody then gets very tribal in how they interpret it. I saw one tweet from Elon about how all of the newspapers characterized her interview with Bret Baier as, quote unquote, testy. And it was sort of like that was the way that the mainstream media framed it. I suspect if somebody looked at how Trump's interview with Bloomberg was analyzed, it probably had some similar verbiage that was repeated there as well. So I think you are right, Jason, that the mainstream media can't be trusted to tell the truth. I would just encourage people to watch it. I think, like I said, stylistically, I think she did well and remained composed. Substantively, I think it was nonexistent.

Yeah. It would have been nice to have another debate between these two.

She still can't really explain how she's different than Joe Biden other than the fact that he's a white male and she's a woman of color. So beyond just sort of the superficial differences, she can't explain on a policy level what she would do differently. She's had so many opportunities to say that. They asked her on the view, they asked her on Stephen Colbert. Bret Baer asked her in his way, and she still can't explain what she would do differently. And I think that is the fundamental problem she has in her campaign, is voters still don't know who she is or what she would do.

Yeah. What did you think of JD Vance saying he wouldn't have certified the election? They seem to be going after him on that over and over again.

You're the only person talking about that.

No, no. Literally every interview they've been chasing him down the hall asking him, I'm not the only person. I may have started it, but what did you think of him saying he wouldn't have started?

That is kind of like when he's in a combative reporting moment. That is the question. He gets a lot.

That's not, that's not the interview I saw. I saw him. The interview he just did with Martha Raditz was, she was saying that Trump was excited.

The question I asked you, Sachs, was I asked you, Sachs about, you're the.

Only one who's fixated on it. No one. No one.

Journalists. What do you think?

No one who is persuadable, who doesn't have TD's cares about that topic anymore.

What do you think, Freidberg, about him saying he wouldn't certify January 6?

It's not, it's not what they're asking. JD, if you want to talk about interviews that JD Vance has done, talk about the one that's actually going viral right now. And that was the interview he did with Martha Raditz where she starts saying that, you know, we've only had a few of these apartment buildings taken over by foreign gangs. And he's like, do you realize what you're saying? You know, there's no comeback from that. He destroyed her.

It was very compelling what he did.

And every interview he does is like that.

Yeah, I mean, she was basically saying that she spoke to, what was it, the city manager? And she's like, he said, only a handful of buildings have been taken over. And JD Vance was like, what do you mean? Yeah, only one handful of buildings. Like, isn't that anything more than zero? Like, too much or anything more than one is obviously a problem. Like, it was just such an obvious rebuttal to the narrative that they're kind of over exaggerating a particular issue. I have no data on this, but he was very compelling in that response. I thought it was pretty strong. But I will say, generally, neither candidate seems to be introducing a new message or seems to be introducing new content. They're just kind of standing up, kind of repeating things that they've said, showing that they can handle and manage different kind of combative reporting tactics, and that's kind of what's going on. And everyone seems to have made up their mind. I see a lot of people on both sides say, again, this side, this person did great. My person did great against this combative reporter, and the other person did poorly against their combative reporter.

And everyone's kind of biased in their view. It just feels like this election's baked and we should just go to the polls and be done.

Yeah. What did you think?

But there's no October surprise coming out, right? Sachs, chamath. But there hasn't been anything. Right. Like that's kind of a shocking moment yet this month.

But, Freiberg, the question I was going to ask you is, since you're not like, hosting Trump fundraisers, what did you think when JD Vance said he didn't think that Trump lost the 2020 election? Does that concern you at all?

There's no way to answer this with the kind of clean framing I think you're looking for. What I saw from JD is that he wants the reporter and the people that he's talking to, and I hear this from him to zoom out a little bit and recognize that there are significant control and control systems and biases that he believes and others believe are strongly affecting the election process and as a result, the election outcome. And I think that that message isn't, is lost because people want him to say, Trump lost the election. You're not admitting it, you're bad. But those people also aren't hearing the point that he's making, which is that there are biases. And we heard these biases, by the way, with democrats in prior elections as well, where they highlighted that they believed that there were biases with respect to misinformation being amplified on social media. And then the next election cycle, they were able to step in and influence what was being changed on those social media platforms. And so there's this big kind of war, media war going on. That's why I'm social media platforms. And I think that that's what both sides are highlighting is their big concern.

And now there's this other big concern about is there appropriate voter verification that the people who are voting, and it's a question to ask that shouldn't be dismissed. It is a good question to ask.

Yeah, it's a great question.

As a person who doesn't have a strong bias for a political party here, I feel like I want to hear answers to those questions. What is the structure of how, the way that most people are getting their media today, which is through social media platforms, what is the mechanism for censorship? What is the mechanism for filtering, for moderation, and be public and transparent about it? And then separately, what are the mechanisms for deciding who gets to vote and how they get to vote? And I think those are both really good things to ask.

I would just like to take a step back and say that that was one of the most incredible answers I've ever heard Friedberg? Unfortunately, it may not land for the reductive masses, but it was exceptionally powerful and thoughtful. Thank you.

Yeah, I'm here for Chamath. I'm here for you.

Well, I mean, independent of who wins, we need to get this rules of elections really tight. Starting next year, I think make it a federal holiday, require people to have id. That doesn't seem like such a big deal. I don't know, Sachs. What else should happen? Federal holiday.

Right now you've got Biden's DOJ is literally suing the state of Virginia, which is required by Virginia law to clean the voter rolls of illegal immigrants. And they've been doing that. And Biden's DoJ has sued to stop that. In California, like you said, we now have a new law signed by Gavin Newsom to make it illegal to ask for voter id. So Democrats seem to be undermining the integrity of elections, not fortifying it. So when you ask, why do Republicans distrust elections? Maybe it has something to do with the way that Democrats are acting. But I agree with you. I think that cleaning up the voter rolls, having a minimum standard for voter verification, is something that I think should be done. The corner of the constitution. The states basically run their own elections. But it doesn't make sense to me that in a one party machine politics state where basically one party controls the state, that they could set up a system that effectively entrenches their power forever in federal elections. It just seems to me that the federal government has a compelling interest that must be constitutional in ensuring a minimum standard of honesty in federal elections.

So I think it would be great to do something about this next year. I think that if you want people to stop questioning elections or engaging in election denial, you need to make the elections above reproach. So let's do that.

So anyway, Heritage foundation, which is obviously right leaning, has a bunch of election fraud cases they've been documenting, and they basically cannot come up with, like, actual evidence that this is changing any election results. But we should make it above reproach. I agree.

All right.

Our boy Elon had a big week. Tesla unveiled two new concepts at its we robot event. And Elon. Elon caught a 23 story rocket. The starship. Here's the robo taxi and the robo bus. Both of them look really awesome. And he caught one of the. I think this is the fifth starship or the fourth launch.

Fifth.

The fifth, right? And then.

Incredible.

Look at this. Unbelievable. It's like chopsticks catching.

Whatever your issues are with Elon and his politics just to appreciate. And we can talk about why this is so important in the segment. But technically, the achievement of this, like, skyscraper falling out of the sky and perfectly aligning itself to go into that chopstick catching device, it is an absolute marvel of human ingenuity. I mean, just, and the work and the effort that people put into this over several decades, it's just such an incredible feat. Look at this thing. I don't know if you guys were as emotionally moved by this as I was.

I thought it was, it was incredible. I think I probably watched this 100.

Times totally from every angle.

Every angle.

And so the reason this is so important is because these things cost a lot of money. And when they land here, you can clean them up. And I guess his goal is to have them take off again after he fills them with propellant an hour later. Friedberg so on a science basis, this is extraordinary. If this works and you start lifting.

You don't want it to have feet, a, it's heavy, and then, b, you have to lift them up in a way that just complicates the entire refueling and cycle time process. So by catching it, you put it right back into place and just go again.

Unbelievable. You just catch it and go again.

I can walk through these numbers. Obviously, the big objective over time is how cheap can you get it to put material into space? We need a lot of material to go into space if we're going to do things in space, particularly if we're going to go build a colony on Mars. And so this shows you, over time the cost per kilogram, which is the key metric in this industry to launch material into low Earth orbit. And you can see here how SpaceX has dramatically reduced the cost. I remember when the small sat era began in the 2010s. Do you guys remember all these startups that were starting to build, like, little small sats and put them up to do imaging and comms and stuff? When this took off, it was about $10,000 a kilogram to put a small sat into space or to put material into space. And then SpaceX has dropped the cost to the point that its now close to $1,000 a kilogram. So a ten x reduction in cost in just the last decade or so. And thats why SpaceX just dominates the launch market. But Elons always said that $1,000 a kilogram is too high.

But his objective has been to get the cost down to $10 a kilogram, because at $10 a kilogram, you could launch what some people estimate is needed to get to Mars, which is about half a million tons of material and people to set up a colony on Mars. And it actually becomes feasible to get half a million tons of material at $10 a kilogram. So if you look at this new starship and starship heavy booster, it's about 100 5200 ton payload. The booster holds 3400 tons of propellant, and the cost of that propellant is pretty low. You know, it's only about a million dollars in fuel. So then if you can get the cost of the booster and the starship down enough and you can reuse it enough and you amortize the cost of making that device. Over the lifetime of the device, the cost per launch comes down, and that's what brings the cost per kilogram down. So the booster, there's a group called payload, and they do estimates on this. So I won't speak out of turn in terms of, like, having inside knowledge, but the payload has estimated that starship and the booster cost about $90 million today.

And they think that they have a path to getting it down to 35 million. So if you can reuse that thing ten times, that's a $3.5 million cost per launch, plus a million for fuel you could easily see, and this thing can launch 200 tons. That's how you start to get to $10 a kilogram over the next couple of years. But it was critical to be able to reuse that heavy booster. And that's what Elon just demonstrated, is we can actually catch that heavy booster, refuel it, and launch it an hour later. And if you can do that over and over again, you're spending $10 a kilogram to put material into space. You can get fuel into space and then get those starships to fly off to Mars and deliver all this material, including setting up a base that would allow you to actually make more fuel on Mars, because everything we need to make fuel is on Mars. So it's the beginning of the next series of really important milestones that'll hopefully get humanity onto Mars. It was just so amazing to see it come together. The economics are legit. I mean, this is like 1000 x reduction in cost.

It's incredible.

Yeah, it's going to be amazing. And they're going to do some, I guess, new stuff with Starlink, some even lower Earth orbit satellites that go even faster and have less latency. So that's going to be super exciting.

Starlink's apparently, I mean, I know everyone here is a shareholder in SpaceX, but Starlink's running at 4 million subs. Right now, that's like $100 a month, 4 million subs. And if you do the math, I mean, how many people have ISP's that are slower than Starlink? How many people have cell phone providers that they're paying roughly the same amount that aren't as good as Starlink? If we can get satellite to phone and you can get Starlink more broadly available, this could be 100 million subscriber business. I mean, this could be the largest businesses on the earth.

It could be the largest subscription business in the history of humanity. I think the largest ones right now are like Netflix, you know, 250. Disney plus 150. Verizon, 100 million. So, yeah, it could be hundreds of millions of subscribers. It could even.

Crazy.

And could be the first 500 million subscriber product in the world.

We could look back one day and be like, why did we run all this copper wire everywhere? We don't need it.

Yeah, obviously.

For sure crazy.

Especially if it can be, like, crazy.

That we were, like, ever. I mean, the whole nutty thing about this past week, it's like we could look back one day and be like, why did we ever drive cars? And why do we ever have copper wire laid all over the earth to, like, move Internet signals around? You know, this. This efficiency gain that's going to be realized over the next decade is just incredible. Just incredible.

Chamath, any thoughts on the Robovan or the cybercab? The model two, I guess some people are calling it, but it's, you know, the cybercab specifically not calling it number two and doesn't have a steering wheel or pedals. I would have bought two of those immediately if it had a steering wheel and pedals. I want to drive it. Yeah, it looks like the hybrid of, like, a model Y and the Cybertruck. So I kind of really love the esthetics of it.

So beautiful.

Yeah. You like it?

My reaction was actually, I don't know, just seeing these releases now, overdose. Ten or 15 years plus of knowing him, nothing, I guess it's, like, not that surprising. It's weird to say. I just expect him and his teams to figure it out. They're just all so good. And the thing to remember, it's not just him that's incredible, but he attracts a kind of technical and operational wonder. Kind people, for sure. And that's just a really special thing. So I had that reaction, which was, I was really proud and happy for them.

For the team.

Yeah, for sure, for the team and for him. These guys are, like, incredibly fearless. Fail bigly right?

Yeah.

If you're going to fail, fail bigly.

Yeah.

And then the other thing that I thought was crazy was how many people were trying to dunk on him this weekend. And that surprised caught me off guard because I think that they were personalizing a lot of anxiety that they are feeling through these companies successes, which didn't make much sense to me.

Well, in fairness, he did hurt some people's feelings with posting of memes. Yeah, I mean, it makes no sense. The guy's gonna save 30,000 road deaths a year in the United States with self driving, and people are losing their minds over a couple of memes or who he's voting for for president. I don't think you have to worry about that. You can just look at the products. They speak for themselves. Anything. Saks, any response on the Tesla front? Any thoughts on the bus or Optimus?

I mean, they're both very exciting products. I don't think I've got a lot to add.

Yeah, I love the bus. Frebert. I think that thing could become like mobile homes aduse and you could just send them to.

Can we buy them or no?

Well, no, not right now. But I think that might be, you know, that that's going to put all.

His kids in one.

I need it for all my kids.

Yeah.

Well, see, if this was a platform like the Mercedes sprinter vans have become that. You see a lot in Europe, then you could buy an empty one of these. It's got a nice battery life. I take a month. And then let's say you had your in laws over and there was one that was set up as like a one bedroom. You could click on Airbnb or, you know, Tesla at B and B, press a button and the thing could drive to your driveway. You could rent it for a week and then it could leave. Or let's say 1000 people or 10,000 people were displaced because of a hurricane. Freiburg, you could send 100,000 of these to the parking lots at Walmart, which typically does a good job in feeding people and getting them supplies after hurricanes, since those are so ubiquitous. You could put 100 of these in every parking lot and have a place for people who are fleeing natural disasters to stay. So I thought that was like, the most compelling product of the whole thing for me was the possibility of a sled, like a skiff that you could do anything you want with would be really exciting for society.

So congratulations to the team. And it's going to take a while, but I could see them having that robot also. I think.

Congrats to amid. He just got promoted.

I saw that. Yeah. He's in charge of all AI.

I think he's in charge of all manufacturing and sales in North America.

Oh, okay. Well, there it is.

Shout out to meet after.

Yeah, I mean, listen, guys, I have big news. I just bought my first Tesla.

Oh, you did? Did you go with a plaid Model S?

Model S? Plaid, yeah. I test drove it for two weeks and sold itself.

And are you using the FSD? I use FSD every day.

I use FSD. And it was, like, really impressive. So super impressive. I've tried Tesla a couple of times over the years, and I never really, never really worked. For me, the quality just didn't feel like what I like, given what I had before the car wise. You were an Audi guy, right? Audi guy, yeah. Always loved Audi guys, remember? Yeah, that's like. Anyway, it's a big milestone. I really. I thought the FSD was the selling and then the speed on the plat is just insane. It's better than my rs7. It's incredible.

With all of my teslas, I put it in show mode because when it's in that plaid mode or whatever, like, coffee goes.

That's my favorite. I love it. I get on the.

But if you have passengers, the kids in the backseat will get, like, literally nauseous because it's too fast. You gotta be careful with the passengers there. So fast.

It was awesome. Awesome.

All right, well, there you have it. Robo taxi star. We didn't get to it last week. We almost put the show back a day or two just to do it. In other news, Uber is exploring a bid to purchase Expedia. Breaking news, this was dispelled as we got here on the show. They said this was, like, very preliminary third party talks and that there's no serious talks going on about this. Financial Times reported that advisors were trying to look at if a deal structure would be possible between Uber and Expedia. Expedia has got a $20 billion market cap. They popped 8% on the news, obviously. Uber, on the other hand, trading at 170 billion market cap or so, that dropped 3%. If you didn't know, Darrow was the CEO of Expedia from 2005 to 2017, he's still on the board, and it looks like this was a trial balloon. You know, Ubers two biggest businesses, rides and Uber eats, but they also do freight and train bookings. Dara's been pretty clear he wants to create a super app like you have in China or some other markets. Expedia's got a lot of cool products, hotels.com, comma, Orbitz, Travelocity, or, and I think the most interesting one Freberg, you and I were talking about this is VRbo vacation rental by owner.

It was like Airbnb before Airbnb existed. And if you look at this chart, since Dara left, the Dara effect, Expedia has gone exactly sideways. The revenue has grown modestly. What do you think of this deal, chamath? I'll just go right to you with this one, since you like to.

Stupid.

Stupid. Okay, there you have it, folks. Reason number one, it's stupid. And reason number two, it's stupid.

I mean, this is a $20 billion market cap business. You probably have to pay a control premium of 50%. So the question is, if you were going to spend $30 billion today in the public markets, what would you spend it on? And I think the most important lens that you have to use to answer that question is what reinforces emote that I have while also being inoculated from the risks of AIh. And I cannot think of a more fragile business model than the UI layer on top of widely available data. So the problem that Expedia has is the same that booking and a bunch of these other folks have, which is that the principal heartbeat of the company, flight information and other things, are licensed to them by third parties. And so what they are is a UI and a front door. I think it's way too early in the evolution of AI to know that that's safe. And in fact, I think a more reasonable assumption is that those things are pretty fragile. And part of what may explain the doldrums of the stock is that I think people are anticipating a world where, for example, I don't know if you saw, but perplexity launched something this week.

It's just in test mode. They whitelisted me into it, but it's basically a checkout concept. So you tell perplexity what you would like it to buy and then it will go and complete the transaction for you. So in the example of flight bookings, you could go directly to United, because a perplexity will just show you all of the flights, they'll show you the exact prices, and then it'll go and execute that for you with your payment method. In a world that looks like that, where these companies have the money to pay for the data feeds, the existing v 10 generation uis, I think, are in trouble. So it would just be a very bad capital allocation decision. Now, that's okay. To get things wrong, but not for $30 billion wrong. You can probably do it for a couple hundred million dollars wrong, or maybe even a billion dollars wrong, because you can absorb that as a 150 or $60 billion company. But 30 billion is too big of a price to pay for that kind of risk.

I would agree with you. And there's other things they could buy, like we ride or Pony AI and a bunch of these AI companies that are doing self driving. So why not double down on that? Freeburg, the one thing you and I talked about was VRBO, which is a very cool marketplace and that feels directly in the Uber kill zone. What do you think about them just maybe carving out and buying VRBO and having an Airbnb?

Why don't they just buy Waymo? Why don't they just go to Google and give them $30 billion of uber stock and just Carvin Waymo? Isn't that a better idea?

I think that's what's going to happen. I've been hearing rumblings of that.

I think that Dara knows Expedia better than anyone. He ran the business for what, a decade or so?

Yep.

And so he knows how that business operates. And so if he's looking at this thing, and the stock price has been flat roughly since he left in 2017, if you look at the underlying financial performance, you could start to construct a rationale for buying Expedia this cheap. And it would be very accretive to Uber, even if there are these big strategic risks on the horizon. So just to give you some numbers on it all, Uber has got about 150 million monthly active users. Expedia has about 45 50 million customers a year that use the service and pay for stuff. So there's a real opportunity to think about the Uberegh customer base that's installed as being almost an opportunity to market to them Expedia services and cross sell. So Expedia, on an annualized basis, is spending about 8 billion a year in sales and marketing and about 720 million a year in GNA costs. And they're running about 3 billion EBITDA right now run rate. So if you cut about half the GNA in an acquisition because you don't need all the people that overlap with Uber's people, and you cut about 30% of the sales and marketing dollars because you can cross sell into the Uber install base, you could see a scenario where you could increase Expedia's EBITDA by 75% to 100%, maybe getting it as high as $6 billion.

And while Expedia's market cap trades at 20 billion. This is off of, obviously, the recent news that they might get acquired if you assume a 40 50% price premium to the last 90 day average of the stock price, which is kind of typical or common for a deal like this. Theyre probably paying 26 billion for the company, and they got about $4 billion in net cash. So youre paying about 22 billion enterprise value to buy Expedia. So $22 billion of enterprise value. And if you can bump the EBITDA up to 6 billion a year, thats a pretty low multiple. I mean, you could kind of see yourself rationalizing this just from a financial basis that youre paying four times EBITDA to buy this thing. And Dara knows this thing, and he would have great command over what needs to be done over there, and he would have a great sense of what to change and what's gone wrong. And there's a lot of interesting assets inside of Expedia. VrBo is a great one that's been under monetized and underutilized. I don't know if you've used the UX on Vrbo versus Airbnb. There's obviously some influence Dara could have with people that he knows well that could go in and fix that interface and make it a better service even as AI starts to step in and hotels maybe integrate better with agents and so on.

And they show up in a more ubiquitous way. There's other things that Expedia does, like build vacation packages and travel packages that are high margin products that they sell that are a little bit different than what you're used to with just booking a flight. Booking flights makes no money for anyone. But vacation packages is where all the money's at. And so theoretically, Expedia could be smarter about how they build vacation packages and personalize them for families. And that's where they can make real margin, like 20%, 30% margin. So I could see a story where this all starts to click for the board at Uber saying, maybe it makes sense. Dara knows what he's talking about. We could buy this thing for four times pro forma ebItda. This could be hugely accretive for us. So I think that's why this is happening, why this conversation may be happening. That's just me trying to understand.

I think it's a good steal, what.

The rationale might be.

Could you just go back and explain how would they drive up EBITDA so much?

So they're spending about 8 billion a year run rate on sales and marketing at Expedia right now, and Uber's got 150 million active installed users that are using the Uber services every month. So the idea would be customers. Yeah, beyond actually paying customers. So if Uber could cross sell some number of Expedia services to their installed base at Uber, which they could test and do a little experiment and see if it works, they may be able to reduce the marketing dollars that Expedia spending to acquire customers through other third party sources like Google and Bing and other places. So there's a rationale.

That's where I think the logic breaks down. I don't think Uber customers want to be cross sold on booking a hotel. See, this is where I think MBA thinking is very different than product thinking. An MBA looking at this would say, well, Expedia and Uber are both in the travel business. Their apps both involve booking trips. So we can cross sell Expedia from Uber and then cut Expedia's marketing budget. I think that's how an MBA would sort of hand wave over it. I think the way, like a product manager would look at this is to say, what does the user want to do? And I know that when I use the Uber app, I just want to basically make a couple of clicks, set my destination, get my car, and then move on. There was a product initiative a few years back at Uber where they tried to capture the user's attention during the ride. And they added that whole ad thing.

That ads making a ton of money.

It's actually printing. It was like an entertainment stream or something inside the app. No, but they dialed it way back because I don't see it anymore. It was just clutter.

Would you trust Dara's judgment on the stacks? If Dara were to think about what the Uber user would want, and he could rationalize some percentage of them, they could cross sell expedia services into. I mean, ultimately, I think it's. It's his decision, right?

Well, what you're describing is basically a private equity play. Like, Dar is going to come in as like a private equity buyer, effectively, and he knows the business and will run it to reduce cost, may boost some revenue, and maybe there is a justification for that. But if you're trying to justify it based on cross selling, I don't think users of the Uber app want to be cross sold when they book a taxi. Okay? They just want to be able to affect their transaction as efficiently as possible. And just to finish the point I was making on that whole entertainment stream that they had, they dialed that product way back because it got in the way you'd be in the Uber app trying to figure out how to change your destination or something, and all of a sudden you're being shown, like, some entertainment product. It's not what users wanted. And it was always kind of a bananas idea to think that just because the user books an Uber, that you own their attention during that ride. Because during that ride, you're really competing with every app on the iPhone. Right. I mean, and that's the problem, is you want to get in and out of the Uber app.

It's about transacting efficiently.

What about not the moment when you're. When you're riding in an Uber, but the moment when you say, as an Uber user, hey, I need to book travel. I got to go on a vacation to often.

I'm never going to think to go on my Uber app for that. The only time I opened.

But what if they put that feature in there? What if they had a tab that said, book your travel here?

You know, when I open the Uber app, when I want to hail a taxi, that's what I.

There are a large number of people who maybe don't have a, you know, an assistant to book their hotels in advance.

And, like, that would be most people. Jcl.

I would not think to go into Uber to do that. It would just be clutter.

Well, no, but they already have a hotels.com partnership. And then the Uber one membership's been growing pretty nicely, and the advertising is doing a billion dollars a year.

Year.

And that is just a money printing machine, because you know that this person's in an Uber black. You know that they're going to the four Seasons. Like, these users who are, you know.

They have a real ad business at Uber.

The more Uber tries to promote some unrelated product. And what I mean by unrelated is it doesn't help you get to where you're going that moment. It's clutter in the app.

What about Uber eats X? Yeah, Uber eats working pretty well.

It's working great. Yeah, no, the cross promotion is working.

That is highly related to this. Basically booking a car to pick up some food. Yeah, it's still the taxi business, basically.

I think the hotel's integration is good.

I think there's something here. We have gone through a cycle where apps and attention were highly consolidated with a few. Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and apps are very narrow features that are really well described. Okay, so that's sort of where we are. That's why we have the billions and billions of apps in the app store. The question is, does the pendulum swing back to these super apps? And I think the big question is not whether it swings back to the super apps, but whether there's a new substrate that puts itself between the user and all of these services so that they become data oriented services. And this is where the question is, if you rely on an agent or you rely on a beef tub version of search, whether that's chat, GPT or Gemini or whatever, why would you care where all of this stuff was done? You're not going to care. And this is, I think the big mistake in this thinking is that that real estate is actually much more fragile than I think we all think it is. And I think a much better way to think about this is in the future, none of this UI real estate is actually worth anything.

The question is, do you have a data asset that's valuable, or do you do a service that's viable because there'll be all of these unemotional bots and workflows doing this work for you. So I think Sachs is right in the sense that whether it's there or not, it won't matter. Could he run it like a private equity business where now Uber corporation owns two services? Sure. But you're probably just better off for these agents to go and cannibalize all of search because you'll be able to just get a data feed for what Expedia has to create. Expedia for a few million dollars or tens of millions of dollars, you don't need to pay 20 or $30 billion for this.

Yeah. The thing that I've talked to Dara about is when they said, he told me, when they do something that's adjacent to what they're already doing, it explodes in terms of engagement. So, like, they're doing like, teens and rental cars and then package delivery, and every time they do one of those adjacencies, it just takes off with the membership. And to your point, Freiburg, they have those 150 customers who have their credit cards in there, and man, it's explosive. So that's what I think they're doing.

A vacation is an adjacency to ordering food.

I think hotels would be. I don't think flights would be, because I think the flights work really well with the existing apps. But things where you have proprietary inventory, like VrBo or hotels, I think those would be very powerful. And those have 20, 30% commissions, which are in line with the commissions that Uber is already getting. And the commissions on things like flights is very small, like a couple of dollars so I think for hotels and VrBo would be brilliant for the other stuff, I'm not so sure to your point, chamath.

Well, just to finish, my thought.

Yeah.

Was that you'll notice that Uber Eats is a separate app from Uber, right? I mean, I know you can get to the Eats part within Uber, but they created a separate app for a reason is because whether you're using Uber Eats or Uber, the goal is immediate gratification. I want to get to where I'm going. I don't book it 6 hours in advance, I call it right now. And the most important thing to me is wait time. This is why Uber is beating Lyft is. But wait time, you do, the wait time is lower. Same thing with food. I'm not thinking about booking my dinner right now. I'm not going to do it in advance. If you browse through the restaurants, the most important piece of data they show you, in addition to the rating is the number of minutes it takes for it to get to you. So those apps are all about immediate gratification and that's why you don't want other things getting in the way of them. Now, I guess the claim is somehow you're going to be able to cross sell the booking of a vacation or a hotel that you have to think about days or weeks in advance.

It's just a completely different state of mind. I just don't think that there's much opportunity to cross sell that. What about technical jargon? I don't think the attach rate is going to be high.

What about the brand value sacks? Because you know those people are going to another app to book their flight in their hotel. What if that other app was called Uber travel?

There might be some value in that. I can see that.

I think that would be the rationale where I could see the Expedia brand.

Yeah. So maybe, maybe what you could do is take Vrbo rebranded as Uber hotel or Uber travel, whatever you want.

Exactly.

And then maybe you could push people to download that app.

Well, the thing, the counter I give.

To this, you could quantify the value of the installs, right?

Yeah, exactly. Well, you could quantify because Expedia spending on it every year right now, I.

Use the bomb Voy app to book hotels, I use united to book my flights, and I use Uber to do my rides. And obviously for eats when you are using it, there's a tab up top in the UI. It's quite nice in Uber where it's rides and eats right next to each other. I could see a third one, like hotels or travel being right there and all of a sudden, yum yum. You just get all that inventory right in there. And I frequently will book my hotel and I'll book my ride for the next day in advance on Uber. And I do those things. And then when I get to my hotel, I'm ordering food to my room. So I think this actually could work really well as a third tab in the app for travel. And you could actually. Cause when you use eats in the uber app, it's its own tab. And it's the exact same experience, I believe, in super apps. And they just launched a bus that's like a bus service in New York for $18 to go to JFK. That's really awesome. I think we're a little bit disconnected because we don't book our own travel, but.

Okay, let's keep moving here down the docket. All right. This big tech investing in nuclear power is off to the races. Amazon just announced a $500 million investment in three nuclear power projects. All of these are focused on smrs. Those are the small modular reactors. Amazon is working with Dominion Energy to develop a small modular nuclear reactor near an existing nuclear power plant in Virginia. In total, Amazon plans to invest 35 billion in Virginia based data centers by 2040. And they want to power these by smrs. And this is a big trend. Google is purchasing energy directly from Kairos Power, another company building smrs. Microsoft, as you heard, was reviving one of the three Mile island nuclear power plants. So this is kind of interesting. Chamath. We went from nuclear not being on the table, everybody being against it, the Germans shutting down their reactors post Fukushima, and now big tech is the customer for these with AI, and they're putting down very large deposits and payments to build them in America. And I haven't heard any opposition. Maybe you could just speak to Chamath. What we've seen here in terms of opposition to these versus the opportunity, and everybody's writing checks.

Yeah, well, they're not writing checks. So this is what. I don't want to be a Debbie downer here, but these press releases need to have an asterisk on them. So in the hierarchy of deals. Right, just to unpack this for a second, there are deals where you give me x and I give you money. That's not what this is. Then if you degrade that kind of deal structure in a lot of heavy industry, you have deals that are called take or pay, which is there is something that's working and you need to basically take this or you need to give me the monetary equivalent of what I'm selling you. That's not what this is. What this is is this conditional obligation where the beginning of the deal starts with a very important statement, which is if it works and if these approvals happen and there's a whole bunch of nested ifs, then payments can happen. So while these are important deals because they show that there are potential buyers at the finish line, what it doesn't do is solve the two things that you need to get to the finish line, which is the actual risk capital to finish building these things and technically de risk them, and then the regulatory approval that you need to make sure that they're allowed.

So I think that these deals are good. I think it's a great signaling, but I think it's important to understand the nuances of these things. These are not things where there's money really trading hands. And until that you see that, where irrespective of what happens, the balance sheet is investing from an Amazon or a Google, where there's Corp dev folks writing $100 million or billion dollar checks into these companies, it's not yet quite there. This is more the step before, which is can you create some marketing and some buzziness to hopefully induce somebody to then rip in billions of dollars of risk equity capital.

Freberg your thoughts on smrs and these customers showing up? And then I guess you could comment on the nature of the deal structure here because some of them are contingent on the nuclear power plant turning on. Some of them do have deposits as my understanding. We'll look that up and fact check it. There could be a range of deals here.

Yeah, I don't know the nature of the deals. I did. I think talk about this a year ago. It was also my prediction for the year was to the uranium stocks predicated on what I think is a really important point, which is as GDP per capita grows, energy consumption per capita grows. And if you looked at the projections of GDP per capita in industrialized nations, there was no way, there is no way to meet the energy demand. And this was even pre all this crazy AI build out, which is probably part of the GDP growth, but there is no way to meet the energy demand without nuclear. There is not enough solar, geothermal or wind build out potential that's happening that the stopgap measure is going to have to be and probably the right long term solution is to have a significant amount of baseload come from nuclear. And so what's the fastest way to do that? Nuclear build out? Well, in China they have the regulatory authority and the mandate stated they're going to build 300 gigawatts with 300 facilities or whatever the number is. And that's what they're doing. Very large facilities that make a gigawatt of power each in the US.

It seems that because of the regulatory structure here and the way that utilities are regulated and the way that the states have authority and the environmental laws and all the other things, that it might be the fastest path to solving this energy gap problem is smrs. And that's why we're, and these things produce tens of megawatts. So again, a gigawatt is 1000. We need to kind of probably grow our energy production in the United States by several terawatts over the next decade or two. So this SMR may be the fastest path. Now that could change, meaning we could end up seeing much larger facilities get built out if there's regulatory change in the US and there's more availability. But fundamentally we are going to need to use uranium to make electricity to meet the demand of the growing the GDP that it seems we're going to be growing it. I think this is just such a necessity. It's great to see the SMR is getting some attention. I just don't know if they're actually going to get turned on, how long it's going to take. I don't know what this election cycle is going to bring in terms of regulatory change.

I think we talked about it with several of the candidates when we were doing the interviews.

Sachs if we are able to get a bunch of these SMRs built here in the United States, maybe if Europe follows suit, what will this do on a geopolitical basis to our relationship with the Middle east, our energy independence, and of course the AI race to general intelligence. I'll let you take it whichever direction you want to go.

Well, I don't think we're going to because I dont think anyone wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard. Its really simple. I mean no matter what the benefits are for AI or for Americas global competitiveness, I just dont think your typical community wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard. And I dont think it matters that much if its a small modular one either.

So you think theyll get blocked by local communities?

Yeah, and probably for good reason. I mean I dont want a nuclear power plant in my backyard. Do you? I feel like this has suddenly become a little bit of a luxury belief where liberal elites are always talking about how we need to have nuclear power now, but they know they're not going to have a nuclear power plant in their backyard. So it's easy for all of us to genuflect about what a great idea this is. But let's face it, these things can be built probably in poor or working class communities, and inevitably there's going to be some accident. I mean, you can tell me how safe they are to your blue in the face. I don't believe it. You know, planes aren't supposed to fall out of the sky either. And it does happen. And you know, they're going to set up one of these power plants somewhere and, you know, it's probably going to have a DEI program and something's going to happen. I mean, something's going to happen and then the fallout is literally going to fall out on the people in that poor community. So I don't think this is gonna happen.

This show really has a diversity of views, doesn't it? Yeah.

Look, this is a perfect example of liberal business elites demanding something that isn't gonna affect them. It's not gonna affect them.

Your take on a non binary trans lesbian with purple hair, whatever you're thinking, putting a small nuclear reactor 200 miles outside of Austin, Texas, go. But your tinfoil hat, how close do.

You want it to your ranch?

Jean?

Cal, I mean, I think there's plenty of land outside of the triangle here in Texas where there is no density. And you could put one, and I'd have no problem with there being 100 miles, 200 miles.

Who's going to work there? Who's going to service it?

I mean, literally, you would have to. It doesn't take that many people to service these. So, yeah, I think there's plenty of space in the United States to put these. And maybe, Freiberg, you could talk and educate us on the safety here. Do you believe what Sachs is saying? That it's going to have a meltdown and he doesn't believe it.

Sax's point of view, to be honest, is the point of view that will be held by a large number of people just like they have been with a lot of other.

Is it the right point of view, though? Tell us from a science perspective?

Well, no. No, I don't think it is. I think that the same argument would have been made around we shouldn't have airplanes at all because they can fall from the sky. We should keep everyone on the ground where they're safe. Why would you want to get on an airplane? Why would you want to have airplanes flying over your home? We should all ban airplanes flying over our home. They could crash in our home. It's the same sort of argument. And the reason I'm not going to argue the point is because of the point I made earlier, which is that it ultimately becomes an economic necessity that for us to meet all of the demands of AI, all of the demands of industry, we want to re industrialize the United States, et cetera, et cetera. We need to increase electricity production capacity on the continent. And there is no way to generate enough electricity on this continent fast enough using other means than there would be if we just got these systems set up.

So you believe they will go through out of necessity. That's your take.

I think globally this is the case and we're seeing it in China now.

Whether the US ends up coming along a NIMbY problem.

That's right. They don't have to. Yeah, that's right. And we may. We may end up.

China is the ammon nimby. My.

Yeah. And we may be the. We may end up being the Luddite state and we'll end up just saying, you know what? We're not going to adopt new technology, including now and like gene editing and cell therapies. And I'll go through the list of new technology sets.

I think there's.

You could make the argument that there's a low probability of a high risk event, but the fact is that the progress that it enables is worth so much more than the risk that we would be taking on.

There's a simpler solution to all of this without having to go and create these reactors, which is. I don't think that we have a very good grasp of the material science, broadly speaking. I don't think we really understand how to build next generation materials. I don't think our specialty chemicals capabilities are all that strong the way that they're going to be over the next five or ten years just with better compute. So I think that there's going to be a lot of interim steps that increase the generally available energy density without going to nuclear. I think there's going to be a lot of businesses to do that that'll be much safer, easier to regulate, easier to test, easier to underwrite, and I think the government will get behind those. So I'm not as negative as you are on the only solution being nuclear.

The countries and the businesses that have a lower cost of electricity and a more abundant source of electricity will end up winning as the economy continues to progress towards a much more kind of digital state and an automated state over the next decades. So if we're going to be slower, we're going to suffer the consequences of that as a country. So we'll see how it plays out. I just think that economic incentives will ultimately drive, hopefully a change.

Would a possible solution be to give an economic incentive to the people who would be in the surrounding areas? Obviously, these things could be 50 or 100 miles from anybody's homes, but even the people who work there or people who might have, I don't know, some homes that were near it. Could you give them no taxes, et cetera, essentially give them incentives to allow this to go through? Friedberg, in your mind, do you think that kind of incentive would work, taxes or some kind of payoff or subsidy?

I'm not sure. I haven't thought much about what the incentives or subsidies would be.

You're going to have to give them an incentive because no one's going to want to live within 200 miles of one of these things.

What would be the number of taxes?

I think that people have a very deep fear of what is deemed to be cataclysmic technology. I do think a lot of this was rooted in the evolution of the atomic age, where we basically have these nuclear warheads mounted to missiles that can travel at 20 times the speed of sound and land on your city and wipe out your city. That is also nuclear technology. And people conflate the two as being similar. And even three Mile island, there were no deaths. It was a shocking, scary thing for people, statistically speaking and historically speaking, and technically speaking, it's a lot more complicated to explain to people what happened and why, and why now is different and no one has the time for that. No one wants to hear that. They want to hear a very simple do you really want a nuclear power plant in your backyard? No way. What about you? No way. All right, let's vote to stop it.

And they're right. I mean, you compare it to commercial airlines, but commercial airlines, that's the technology that's been around for what, like 100 years?

Do you have any data on the safety record of nuclear technology? Because I'm not sure you do. I think my point is like, you're.

Just making a statement out of the data. Where's the data?

Let's do it. Let's do it right now. I mean, I think this is an important discussion. I'd like to actually, my point about.

Commercial airlines is we've had that technology for over 100 years. It was honed and refined over many decades, and commercial airlines now have become.

This is going on 100 years of use. Right?

You know that there have been incidents every decade or two.

And that is why that's not true. You're saying something that's not true.

The reason nuclear has been discredited is because of three Mile island and Fukushima.

First of all, it's not been discredited.

Chernobyl. I mean, these names live in infamy.

It's social fear mongering, like you were doing right now with no data and no facts to try and make it a political issue that drives everyone to one side, shut their minds down and not listen to the actual facts and data. And this fear mongering is what keeps us from being competitive. It keeps us from having progressed. You talk a lot about people talking about Elon.

Listen, listen. I'm just saying I don't want one near me now if they're. Hold on a second.

There were 26 deaths at Chernobyl.

I'm not against doing it somewhere where the community is in favor of doing it. So if you can find a place that wants to do this, I would not stop it. Just to be clear. I'm just saying I don't want one year.

Let's get to facts. Jake.

Cal, just give me a second.

Yeah.

I don't think you're going to find many takers, even among poor communities.

It's a great adversarial point.

Let's go to the fact 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 32 countries around the world. Since the time that we first had nuclear reactors, which has now been almost a century, there have been three incidents. Chernobyl, Fukushima, and three Mile island. At three Mile island, there were zero deaths. At Fukushima, there was one death, and at Chernobyl there were 46 deaths. The fallout from those events has been that we shut down energy production, we shut down nuclear reactor technology, and we fear mongered our way into losing the most abundant available.

Can I just ask a question of energy? Do those deaths actually include the second and third order effects of all this radiation?

At Chernobyl, there were 15 people who got thyroid cancer, 35 operators and first responders who got radiation sickness, and then the background radiation effects. There's a lot of kind of noise around this, but it's not a significant number, as you may otherwise think. Same with Fukushima.

Why is it that whole region is still uninhabited? Then?

They had a radiation event. There's radioactive material that has covered that area that will be radioactive for a long period of time. Now, to understand what happened there and why that won't happen again requires talking about the difference in the technology between gen one, gen two, gen three, and gen four systems. A lot of what's being rolled out now are these gen three nuclear reactors. And the gen four systems, which we highlighted a little while ago, do not have a meltdown possibility. We talked about this, the one that went online in China in December. Those new systems, the gen four reactors, cannot melt down. You cannot have an incident like you did with the gen one and gen two systems. And the gen three systems are abundantly safe. China is building hundreds of them. It is a totally understandable science if we want to spend the time looking at the data and understanding the engineering and the material science work and all the effort that's gone in billions of dollars over decades. The biggest stumbling block and the biggest wall has been the fact that people have this fear mongering activity that they tell people just dismiss it.

It's too scary. We don't want it in our backyard. Let's move on to the next opportunity. That's what's killed it.

And if you just put these things 50 miles away, the radiation, even in the meltdowns, didn't go past those, is my understanding. So even if you want to, just the easiest steel man, the new systems don't melt down.

You don't have that possibility.

And the smRs, I am into hundreds.

Of them, don't even work. These smRs, they don't work.

That may be another point. How can you say for sure what the safety record is going to be?

No, that's just to be clear. Smrs don't work yet. We have theoretical ways in which we can profile and model that they work, but we don't have a functional one that people can look at and inspect. As part of that, we haven't been able to test how they fail. Those are also theoretical. So I think let's put smrs often, let's just be very accurate. We don't have a functioning working version of one because they don't work yet. Maybe they'll work in the future. Let's hope that they do. What you're talking about, Friedberg, is a step before that, which is the gen three reactor, which has a different.

There are SMRs operating in China, Russia, and India today, and there's about 65 being built at this moment. Right. And that's outside the US. So that's why the US is kind of observing and trying to catch up and adopt these technologies that are being used by, call it economic competitors and economic partners around the world. It's important for economic prosperity in the US for us to have a degree of competitiveness in electricity prices. If China races towards five cents per kilowatt hour for electricity and we're sitting here at for electricity, what's that going to do to our economic competitiveness?

We are at $0.05 in the generation.

And you're saying solar, right.

We can fix that tomorrow. We already rely on a nuclear reactor that works. And to Sachs point, it just happens to be millions of miles away. So if it goes, we're all going to go anyways.

Yeah. The scalability of solar in terms of getting us to a terawatt of production capacity is the limiting block. Jamaat. That in order to get to a terrible.

I think that's a material science problems. I don't think that's. You don't need to.

It's not such a bad thing that other countries are taking the early adopter risk.

That would be. That's decades in the making sacks. Yeah, that's gonna be. But if they're. If China runs away with this and they have so many of these running, and then they're able to power AI and solve problems, we're not. We're gonna have to get our act together and start standing these up.

I don't think they just have to be limiting.

Every Navy submarine's got a nuclear reactor on board. That's how we have power.

So much space in this country. These things could be 100, 200 miles away.

But I don't think anybody's a limiting factor in our ability to innovate. I don't think it is today in these data centers. Certainly it's not the limiting factor in our ability to innovate. It's not the limiting factor in like for example, we're asking us to charge.

Up every car every night with electricity, with a battery rather than using gasoline.

Let's make my point. So we just saw OpenAI launch strawberry. Is the reason why Microsoft or Google or Meta not responded with their own version an energy problem? No, we're still rate limited by innovation and just raw intellectual horsepower and capability. Meanwhile, we are trying to solve the energy problem and people are taking different approaches. There's storage that's coming online very aggressively. The solar capability itself is ramping up aggressively. We're also forcing these utilities to actually be deconstructed so that there's more efficiency in the energy markets. All of this, if you unpack why it cost twenty cents a kilowatt hour, it's not because of a generation problem. It is not. It's graft it's corruption. It's old legacy infrastructure. All of it can be replaced in a much simpler and safer way. So I think by the time that you are rate limited by energy, you'll have a plethora of solutions. My issues with the smrs is the ones that are promising these next gen whiz Bangdan performance characteristics, they're all theoretical FrieDBERG so even when you say there are smrs working abroad, there's no, like next generation reactors working abroad. They don't work. Where is an example of these modern next generation reactors actually working?

Where.

Well, we talked about the gen four one that went live in China. There's several smrs and several countries that are active producing power.

You can call it a small modular reactor. What I'm talking about, these next gen materials, the things that Kairos and these other guys are trying to do, where is a functioning working version?

They have them. I mean, like, we have one in India, we have one in China. I'll show you the, I'll send you links to them here. There's about 50 of them that India is actively building right now. And they're, they're competitive with Cairo. Right? They all have kind of common design concepts, but they're different companies anyway, I'm just saying, like, they're getting rolled and just.

Freiberg, maybe you can educate us in the distance. It could be from a city reasonably, in terms of building a grid to move the energy from. Could it be 200 miles from a major city? 300, 100? What's it, what's.

You can put power production wherever you.

Want, but it has to move it.

As long as you got the copper to move it right. You need electrons.

Yeah, I'm just trying to think reasonably. Move it is, I guess what I was getting at, but. Okay, well, they have it, folks. A good debate here on the all.

Good debate. A good debate.

I still love you all will lay copper from some country that has an SMR. It's funny you said that, Washington state.

I was just thinking like, if Canada and Mexico have economic incentive to do this, or they're more bold, maybe they build them in their countries and they'll be selling it to the United States, right? They'll take the, I mean, if you're Kairos and you can't put this in the United States, but you could put it in Mexico and then come up with a way to get it passed Trump's border wall.

You may be able to put it into the United States, but we won't know until we know it works. Just. I'm sorry. I keep going back to this tricky little issue. If it doesn't work.

Well, I mean, I think, Freiberg, I'm with you in that even with the disasters that have happened, those are with gen one and gen two reactors. There hasn't been one in a long time.

And the fallout from that, I believe those significant. Spin those up right now. These gen two, gen three reactors, do them all day long. I think that they're very safe.

They're very backyard.

The threes are always 100 miles from my backyard. No problem.

China is producing a gigawatt of power.

Would you own 10 miles outside Austin?

I don't think you should put it 10 miles outside of any city. I know that they're doing that in India, they're doing that in China. I would think if you look up the footprint of Fukushima, that was a complete disaster. They put that below sea level. They told them not to put it there, and they put it near a bunch of people who were living within miles of it, single digit miles of it. There's no reason for this to be any closer than 50 or 100 miles. And I would be totally fine with it being 50 to 100 miles from where I'm on my ranch right now. Absolutely no problem with that.

I think this is a classic luxury belief where it's easy for you to espouse this for everybody else, for the nation, because, you know, the downsides aren't going to fall on you.

Nobody can put hundreds from where we use them, and maybe everyone will be safe. Would you. Would you be comfortable with putting them in the desert?

Yeah, but in that case, there won't be.

Okay, then we're done.

That's how we're running wind and geothermal today. We're putting these sites in random places and solar, and then we're running cable and we're, you know, producing, deliver solar.

Just because they don't want it to be an eyesore. Right. That's why we're doing that with solar is we don't want people to look at a giant solar thing.

Like I said, I'm not against doing it. If you can find a community that's willing to do it, and if you put it where there's no humans, then, yeah, that's going to work.

So there we go. We've resolved our issue. We got the compromise here.

Here we are solving world problems. Yes.

I'm going to get my guitar, and we're going to sing Kumbaya Sm.

To work at this place, you better.

Get some robot employees.

I can't wait for you guys to lay millions of miles of copper cabling now, isn't it? I'll lay that pipe, genius.

You need me to lay pipe? I'll do it.

Genius.

No.

Did sacks, do you want to go visit a nuclear power plant?

Let's go. Yeah.

How's that?

Any progress? Sachs is not interested in any progress, okay? If we can go back to the fifties. That's what he wants.

Let's get you like virtue signaling.

I'm virtuous. I'm pro nuclear.

Yes. It's a luxury belief. You're promoting something.

Power is a luxury because they're gonna.

Put these things in pork communities. And so it's never going to affect your life.

They're putting them next to data centers. Everything is like the middle politics in, like, Oregon.

Like, it's easy for you to say, oh, I support nuclear. Look how progressive I am. Look how smart I am. You haven't internalized the downsides.

I just want electricity politics for you, Sachs. Everything you see, poor and rich, everything.

I'm defending, you're going to put these things in poor communities.

You're genuflecting sacks, looking after the poor.

Mister, I'm being realistic.

Robin Hood over here. Robin Hood.

I'm saluting the right of communities to say no to this. You are my favorite experiment.

You're my favorite athlete.

I'm defending the right of local communities to say no to your science experiment. Okay? That's what it comes down to.

Freiburg is trying to put this episode 200. I love it. This sums up the whole 200 shows.

Sack, let me ask you a serious question.

It's not serious when you start like that.

If Trump loses, what's the next four years on this pod going to be like? What are we going to do here?

He's moving to New Zealand.

There's going to be lawfare all over the place.

Absolutely. They're going to come for you.

Do you really think so, David?

Yeah, I do. I mean, look, I'm definitely not the top of the list. Elon's at the top of the list. Right. He has no choice but to go all in. They're already doing law firm against him. But I think the point is just that if they're not defeated, they're going to keep doing it because there's no downside for it.

I will comment on the California Coastal commission ruling that was based on Elon's political tweets, which is why they stopped additional launches out of Vandenberg. First of all, how the Coastal commission has authority over Vandenberg and the operations. Just seems to me like there's something wrong. The Coastal commission was set up with the Coastal act in 1976 in California as a way to give the beaches back to the people and the public and create a commission to regulate building along the beaches. It has since grown into, effectively, a much larger entity with much more authority, which potentially, after the Chevron ruling in the Supreme Court, may get peeled back and may get dialed down. We'll see what happens. But as of now, they have the ability to block launches out of Vandenberg, which they did. And in their decision, they said it was because of Elon's political tweets again, starting at the beginning of the show, about the success that they had with the starship this week. It's incredible. It deserves to be recognized on the merits of what they accomplished. But to bring in his political tweets to make a decision about the progress of SpaceX and allow public space to be used to further that cause and further that activity seems to me abhorrent.

And it's ridiculous. And it's exactly what's wrong with the bureaucratic morass that a lot of these institutions have grown into.

And this was.

Do you think they're going to be pro or con? Smrs?

Exactly. Yeah.

No, I'm serious. Do you think they're going to be con?

For sure.

They're conviction. What the coastal commission does is they block everything. They block everything. And they do pictures of the entire coastline. If you build, like a shed on your beachfront property, they will know it and they come to you and they're like, no sheds. You cannot build any structures on the beach. They're just like, really? Really?

It's a values decision that the state of California made in 1976. The state of California, the citizens voted and said, we want to preserve the coastline. And I think that that's a reasonable value for them to assume and vote for. And it was a majority vote, and so they established the coastal commission. But how the coastal commission extended into having authority over Vandenberg and launches from there for SpaceX, to me, is part of this kind of administrative growth. Like, we see all these administrative bureaucracies get started that have a very simple objective, preserve the California coastline. But now they have authority to determine whether or not launches can happen at an air force base.

One person at the coastal commission referenced his tweets and the vote was six for to increase these.

So who is this one person in an official context? I think she was like, retweeting it. There's like a tweet from her.

Yeah, this is what I'm donating.

She was taking credit for it. I mean, in a way, she's proud of her. She's proud of it. She said the quiet part out loud. So in a way, she does a favor, which is she acknowledged that all of this lawfare against SpaceX and Elon is political. She basically pleaded guilty to it. Look, she's proud of it because she doesn't think there's anything wrong with it. She thinks this is her job is as a bureaucrat. She's supposed to punish people who tweet things that you're not supposed to say. That basically is what it comes down to. And, I mean, this is the truth about lawfare. They're using the agencies of the federal government to exact reprisals against their political opponents. And if there's not, if there's not a punishment for that, it's going to keep going.

And they filed a, Elon's filed a lawsuit and it's a six four decision. So I think, by the way, the.

Biden Harris administration could stop that. They could say no more lawfare, but they don't do that because the tone was set from the top.

And Trump is saying he's going to be a dictator and he's going to do a bunch of lawfare when he gets in there. So he's got to settle it down. That's exactly what he said.

This has been another misquote.

Ok, Jake, you can't wrap a show like that. That's just not cool.

I'm just trying to wrap up so we can move on.

Well, then don't make a sly comment, like, just do something else. Talk about something else besides Trump at the end. Like, just give it my opinion.

I'm not allowed to give my opinion on the show.

What are you grateful for right now in your life?

I'm grateful for you doing all the work on the events and making them spectacular.

I'm really excited for Saks, live from Mar a Lago.

Oh, God, I will totally go to Mar a Lago for election night. Can we get a booth there?

I'm hilarious. Keep saying it. It's not clear you would be invited.

Yeah, exactly.

Of course I'm invited.

Trump, everybody, neither you nor I gave the hundreds of thousands of dollars per ticket to go to dinner with.

Trump loves me.

He enjoys, very selective for friends.

Okay, I'll do it remote. That's fine. You can do it remote. You don't want Jake out there. That's fine. Go with me.

When is he?

I don't want to be, I don't want to be at a party I'm not invited to.

Isn't sure. Two weeks. In three days.

Yeah.

November 5, please.

It's like just waiting every day for it to drop. Whatever.

I just hope whoever wins, wins, like significantly. So we please win by 30 electors.

No, 40, no Supreme Court decision.

Right now, the only candidate who looks like he could get a landslide is Trump. Otherwise it's gonna be very close. So you're rooting for Trump if you want to. Landslide.

I mean, I'm going to, I'm going to reveal my vote on the election special.

I will have, that's really hard to figure out. I'm sure the audience will be holding great suspense by that.

Did you guys vote yet? Did you guys vote yet?

I got my ballot on my, I.

Got my ballot on the desk here. Yeah, I'm ready to go. I'm ready to go. All right, everybody. This has been another wonderful episode. Oh, meetups. There are 200 episode meetups happening. Thank you to all the fans who got together. Take pictures and share them on social and us allin.com meetups. Every couple episodes, fans get together around the world and talk about their favorite bestie. That's typically braver. And we'll see you next time. Bye bye.

Have you guys, bye bye.

We'll let your winners ride rain man David Sackdeh.

And instead we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

Love you.

Besties are gone.

We should all just get a room.

Just have one big huge orgy because.

They'Re all, it's like this, like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

Wet you're beep, beep.

Wet your feet.

We need to get merch.