Transcript of Elon's Big Loss, Trump's Stock Trades, and OpenAI vs. Apple New

This episode is brought to you by The Build Podcast, a new podcast from the guys behind Sincera, Mike O'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, solved their hardest challenges, and grew their businesses in the process. Listen to The Build with Mike O'Sullivan wherever you get your podcasts. Support for the show comes from Klaviyo. Imagine hiring two brilliant employees. The first takes your marketing from idea to full campaign— email, SMS, push— in the time it takes to describe it. The second handles every customer conversation 24/7, answering questions, recommending products, handling orders, both on brand and always on. Your next hires? Klaviyo's AI agents. Get started at klavio.com. Vayo.com.

What does it take to be prepared for disaster? You have to be confident. You have to be calm. Will you be perfect? No. But the idea is that you'll have your bearings and this won't be something new to you. This week on Explain It to Me, how to stay ready so you don't have to get ready. New episode Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts.

And the problem is, folks, that's not when we need your testicles.

Hi everyone, this is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.

And I'm Scott Galloway.

So you finally put a picture of me on your wall of your New York studio.

You know, I had it next to my bed and I decided to put it in my office.

A big one like that. Uh-huh. Thank you for putting me up there. I appreciate it. It shows a commitment to our relationship that I worry about sometimes. I'll be honest with you.

I like keeping the other person a little bit on their heels.

I feel that. Yeah. Is that how you conduct relationships?

Yeah. Yeah. And then they break up with me.

Yeah. Well, that's probably how it's going to go here.

Yeah. There you go.

That's how it's going to go. Anyway.

I saw a movie last night. I went and saw Ladies First with Rosamund Pike and Sacha Baron Cohen.

Oh, was it good?

Yeah, I was shocked how much I enjoyed it. It's a little cliché. It's a little— It's based on a French film. It felt like it should have been played in the '90s, but it's sort of an elegy to London. And I think Sacha Baron Cohen is actually a very strong actor. And he's sort of a leading man. He's actually quite handsome. And I think Rosamund Pike is one of the great talents.

She is.

I saw— I've had a lot of Rosamund Pike. I went and saw her play on Friday. It's basically a one-woman show and it's incredible. It's about a judge whose son is accused of rape and the conflict she goes through. I think she's an incredible talent.

She is. I like her and Rebecca Ferguson. Rebecca Ferguson is my favorite of that genre of actor. You know what I saw this weekend? Speaking of handsome people? Sheep Detective.

Say more, I don't know it.

It's a movie called Sheep Detective. It's essentially, as my wife says, Knives Out but with sheep. And Julie Louis-Dreyfus plays the principal. It's called Sheep Detective, but Hugh Jackman is in it. He plays a guy who's a shepherd, and there's a murder mystery, and it's really good. It's shockingly good.

He's very good too, Hugh Jackman.

Yeah. Anyway, it's about this bunch of sheep that solves a mystery, and the guy, Greg from Succession, I forget his name, was in there. He plays the police person, and it's just delightful. It's a delight. And Emma Thompson is in it, and it's one fucking delightful movie about sheep detection.

Yeah, I was out in the Cotswolds, and I ran into a guy who was carrying two sheep under each arm. And I said, "You shearing?" And he said, "Nope. Gonna fuck both of them myself." Oh my God.

I knew you'd come up with a sexual remark.

Oh my God.

Anyway, I recommend it. I'm in this one. When is this other movie coming to the United States? Is it opened or not?

Honest answer is I don't know.

I've never heard of it. I like serious Sacha Baron Cohen. Is he serious? Because I think he's quite funny.

He plays an executive who comes back, who hits his head and comes back as a woman and deals with—

Oh.

I mean, it's sort of, The social commentary, I actually think feminists are going to hate it because it's the same kind of a man who's a cad goes through on a hero's journey, and he's deep down, he's a good guy and discovers he's a good guy. I think the story is somewhat a little bit passé and trite and outdated.

Well, Mel Gibson was in that movie. Do you remember? He had his head and he—

Yeah, where he had to wax and everything. But the chemistry between Sacha and Rosamund, and the production values, and also they just do such a great job hilarious job of all the little Easter eggs. Like instead of Five Guys, it's Five Gals. Instead it's Victor's Secret. It's like you realize every single ad is about essentially objectifying women or about, or praising men. It's actually pretty clever.

Well, I wonder what would happen if you hit your head? Would you come back? That could be interesting.

You know what happened? What? I got concussed playing soccer and—

Is that what's still ongoing? Yes.

You're living it.

I know. That would be an interesting movie. What do you call someone who transports sheep? What?

Sex trafficker.

Oh my God. Oh God.

Oh my God.

Oh my God. Do you know what I did this weekend though? I just tell you really briefly. Power washed everything from the winter. My whole deck.

And then I had a— Oh, okay. Now I gotta tell a lesbian joke.

All right, go ahead.

What do you call a lesbian dinosaur?

What?

A Lixolotopus.

Oh, wow. Wow. Is that bad?

You asked for it.

I know.

You were just setting me up.

I love my power washer so much. I got rid of all the winter grit and then I had a barbecue with my nice friend Audie Cornish. You're so performative.

Positive in your lesbianism.

I love my— I'm sorry, I love it. I'm gonna, I'm gonna power wash you next time you come, if you ever come my way.

I could use it. Are you going to come to any of the Prophecy Markets live tour?

Yes, yes, I will come to at least one. Can I run on the stage naked and run off?

You can absolutely run on the stage. I want you to answer a question or something, or we'll bring you out, or we'll do something fun.

All right, well, let's get straight to the breaking news of the day. Elon Musk just lost his high-stakes lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI, which alleged OpenAI had violated a promised to remain a nonprofit. After deliberating less than 2 hours, uh, which means they didn't get the free lunch, a federal, uh, jury ruled unanimously, 9 to 0, that Altman and OpenAI did not betray their nonprofit founding missions. There's a statute of limitations technicality, but I think they're basically saying, Elon, you giant adult toddler, too bad. Um, Scott, we've been saying this all along, that this would happen. Check it out. I think this jury can't possibly side with them. I mean, ultimately, I don't think they proved anything. And it's a sort of he said, he said kind of thing. And Elon's the most loathsome of the pair, right? By far, by a country mile. So I think Elon's made a spectacle of himself. If he wins, it would be something else. Like, I'll tell you that. But I can't imagine the jury thinks this guy got the, got a short end of the stick or that he's stupid and didn't know what was happening.

The judge backed the verdict and dismissed all claims, including one against Microsoft. Both men are racing towards massive IPOs with OpenAI valued at over $850 billion and SpaceX expected to go public public very soon after merging with Musk's xAI, which has been pretty much of a failure in the AI department, possibly one of the reasons for this lawsuit. Thoughts?

Look, as predicted, I thought this was an easy one, and I thought this was a messiah complex and seller's regret cosplaying a legal argument. The only thing that came out of this entire case was that Musk was fucking a board member and that she nor he disclosed it after he had left.

I mean, well, if, if they did it that way, let's be, we don't know. How that happened.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Allegedly.

You're saying she was immaculate conception and just took a kiss?

I don't know. Let's not get into it. But they're romantically involved now. Okay. Got it.

Uh-huh. Okay.

Okay.

This was lawfare. And this was, again, I am turning. So I think we now need alternative minimum taxes of 60 or 70% on anything over $1 billion for an individual because these individuals are under the impression that they are not subject to the standards of Western society, decency, or any, or the law. The fact that they would even, he would even bring this case.

Nonsense. Waste of time.

Is, okay, you don't have a legal argument, but I'm Elon Musk. And nonprofits are allowed to convert to for-profits. They do it all the time. He tried to convince them to become a for-profit that he would control. And when they said no, he left and started his own for-profit AI company. And then 6 years later decided to give up all ownership and governance of that now that it was worth $850 billion, he wanted some of that, or he wanted to at least slow it down for his failing LLM. We've made a lot of predictions. We get some wrong. This was a fucking layup.

It was. I have to say, one of the things that people— look, first of all, it's a waste of our legal time. It's a waste of those 9 jurors' time. It was ridiculous how— let me tell you, all of them came off badly, right? Sam Altman doesn't look good. Shivon Zilis, the alleged person girlfriend thing. No, she is his girlfriend, I guess. I don't know. I don't care. But Greg Brockman, the only person who came off like an adult is Satya Nadella, who's the CEO of Microsoft, right? He looks like he did the right thing. He handled it well. All his texts are fine. The rest of them look like fucking babies and unhappy. And just why are they in charge of our fate? Why are they so unhappy and so rich? All kinds of like, Weird dramas between them, personal dramas, and it's a waste of our legal system's time. It's just ridiculous. The judge seemed perplexed as to what it was doing there. And again, it does come down to Elon Musk and sour grapes. He has the sourest grapes on the planet, even though he's about to become the richest person on the planet, right?

In the history of the planet. The other thing is that both of them are sucking wind while Gemini and Anthropic are lapping them, right? So all this waste of time and energy over companies that have problematic, real problems, right, in their own thing. And it's just, the whole thing is just, I just, and I think the fault lies, of course, with Elon Musk who just can't like lose. He's a sore winner is what he is. I don't know what else. And he's a bad loser essentially. And, you know, do you think it'll affect their IPOs or positions in the overall AI race? Because I don't see anyone coming off well except except for Gemini and Anthropic in this deal, essentially.

Well, Gemini and Anthropic win by just pure virtue of the fact that this is a big distraction for a non-competitor, xAI, and a real competitor, OpenAI. The only nuance I would add to your comments is one, there's a small fraction of people, us included, very small, that were tracking the nuance and the details of the case. Generally speaking, the majority of people will read this today and it distills down to a very basic thing. Musk lost and Altman won. So I actually think Altman comes out of this as a winner.

Fair. That's fair.

Because the majority of us didn't listen to the testimony and just how petty and childish and weird these people are. So it's like they'll remember one thing about this. Oh, Musk lost and Altman won. And I think the prediction markets, I don't know what they were saying. At one point it had Musk at 50%, which was a great bet. But the thing I looked at was the secondary market and I didn't see shares in OpenAI decline in value. So I think this gives new, not new wind, but existing wind in the sails of the OpenAI IPO. And also I don't think it, to be fair, I don't think it hurts Musk's IPO because I think people are so intoxicated for many good reasons for good reasons, by the IPO of SpaceX. This was— and the, the most interesting thing I saw in the CNN article that we just pulled up was the judge almost appears to be wallpapering over why they didn't dismiss it in the first place. Why did they even let this get to trial? Because the judge was saying that she, you know, one of the reasons I was thinking of dismissing You're gonna have legal scholars look at this and go, "How the fuck did this ever go to trial?" Because of a technicality, because of statute of limitations, correct?

Was that it? Yeah, well, statute of limitations, and also there is a certain benchmark for what actually proceeds to a jury trial.

Yeah, nuisance lawsuit.

Yeah, so I think this will go down as, I don't wanna call it a nothing burger, but something that was distracting for them that people, The TMZ of the tech community loves reading the testimony and all that. But at the end of the day, this is a speed bump, not even a speed bump, a bump for both firms. But the distillation is the following. Our court system still works. Musk lost, Altman won. But bigger picture, neither of their IPOs is threatened by this.

Yeah, who the fuck cares is what I thought. The whole thing was such a, like, I do think, I agree with you about the nuance. I think you're absolutely right. No one will remember that. Boy, did I get an insight to what a bunch of fucking babies these people are. Really, truly. I thought that, and now I'm like, unconfirmed. Like, a lot of the stuff, like, that I'd heard about Zillis not telling the board about the pregnancy, the twins and stuff, I heard that and I was like, that can't be. And then it was. Like, a lot of— and Greg Brockman's journal, and I know that's sort of like, we're interested in it, or I am at least, but it does It's like, really does. I was like, I thought they were babies. And indeed, in court, they were babies. And so I—

Can I tell you about my pregnancy story conflict?

No. What is— Do you—

you don't want to bring this up to me?

I'm pregnant with my baby.

Who wants to know? Stranger things have happened. Okay, so you got to tell me you want the story first, though.

I want the story. Go ahead. Really briefly, though. Okay.

That's— that's— Scott, briefly is an oxymoron. So I'm a professor, I'm just getting traction at Stern. It's like 2000 and when was it? I should know this. 2007. Finally, I'm finally getting traction as a professor and, and my dean calls me and says, I need you to come up right away. And when the dean calls you and says, come up right away, right away, it's either very good or very bad news. So I roll up there and he goes, he goes, okay, so there's a rumor. And he goes, There's a second year who looks like she's about to give birth. I mean, she's clearly very, very pregnant, a second year student. And there's a rumor that you're the father.

What?

Yeah, true story. He goes, there's a rumor that you're the father. And I go, well, I've got good news and bad news. And he literally put his head in his hands. He went, oh, fuck. And I said, the bad news is I am the father. And I said, "The good news is we've been having sex for several years." We disclosed in her application that we were living together and in a relationship together.

Oh, interesting. Thank you. End of pivot.

We didn't tell anyone, especially students, and I didn't tell any of my colleagues. I just disclosed it when she was applying to the school. And, but yeah, that was— Oh my God. I had knocked up a student who was walking around.

Oh no. Oh God. Okay. All righty. On that note, I had a lovely pregnancy and it was all in a—

OpenAI!

OpenAI!

And then I went on to do the IPO of Red Envelope at a market cap of $108 million.

Oh God, that ended badly. Okay.

It did end badly.

By the way, the legal stuff isn't over. Moving on to more OpenAI legal news, the company is reportedly weighing possible legal action against Apple over how ChatGPT has been integrated into devices and apps. They were just waiting for this trial to end. And here we are. This deal that OpenAI thought would bring billions of dollars in subscriptions has not turned out that way. OpenAI believes Apple failed to give ChatGPT prominent placement in Siri and iOS and didn't significantly promote the integration. Apple has its own concerns about OpenAI, as they should, questions around privacy and the company's push into hardware and devices. They did hire Johnny Ive or bought his company. Another sign of the fraying relationship, Apple is planning to let users choose between multiple AI models the way they do with search, even though they favor Google, including Gemini from Google and Claude Cloud from Anthropic across its software later this year. Maybe they'll sell the pole position to one of them, but supposedly it was supposed to be OpenAI. Thoughts here?

I don't know what the contract is, but it kind of goes to the notion that even one of the most powerful companies in AI, it's all about placement and distribution.

Absolutely.

Even going as far back as when I was running a strategy firm and we were working for Levi's, they initially decided they needed to go vertical because JCPenney's would put their own Arizona brand at the front. I mean, distribution just has so much power, right? And even someone, even something as powerful as OpenAI, if you put them at the bottom, they're not going to get as much. But I've said for a long time, I thought Apple was going to continue to be the arbiter and basically say, unless you pay us a lot of money, we're not putting you at the top, especially a company like OpenAI. But I don't know what the contract, I don't know if it's an actual, I don't know if an actual formal breach of contract, but I would argue that—

Like the Disney-Soros one that you had called out as possibly being a nothing burger.

I just, I wonder, do you really want to piss off the premier means of distribution with the kind of access to cheap capital that OpenAI has? And Sam Altman's a smart man regardless of what you think of them. I don't see, I would be trying to figure out a way to cut a deal similar to what Google did where we're going to pay a shit ton of money and we're going to be your default AI. So I don't, Going after them legally, I don't, I don't—

Maybe Apple doesn't want them to be default AI. Maybe Apple does have concerns about privacy.

Yeah, I don't know anything about, do you know anything about the legal veracity of the case?

I just don't know. I don't know. I mean, they obviously, the deal doesn't, like these, they struck all these very high-profile deals, whether it was Disney, which became a nothing burger. It was an experiment and didn't really go anywhere. They, you know, they did a lot of like, ta-ta, kind of things. And this is the biggest one of them. And then they turned around and did the Johnny Ive thing, right? Which has got a chap Tim Cook's ass, like on some level, right? Even though he's gonna be stepping down. And at the same time, they would have questions about what they wanna do now. Of course, Apple is a pay-to-play kind of company too by giving Google, probably Google Maps are very good. Theirs were very good. There were other players. They didn't give search to, they gave search to Google 'cause they paid them. So they are, they will take your money. And Google certainly has issues around all manner of issues. So they sort of overlook those. So I don't know. I just, I feel like they'll be, I think letting people choose between the multiple models is the best way to go.

I don't love this place pay-to-play kind of stuff because it doesn't, it may give you a good version, but it doesn't give you necessarily the one you want. So it seems to me that people should be able to choose their AI model since Apple's not going to be deploying that themselves. You know, if you want to use Claude, you should be able to use Claude and whoever may the best man win kind of thing. But that's hard to do because people don't, really choose, do they? They just default use Google Maps or Google Search.

I think they, they play on the inertia of consumers and that is they essentially, basically my understanding is with Google Search being the default on iOS, they make it easier for you to use Google Search than use Bing.

Oh, it comes with it. You have to go deep into the thing to change it like to any of them. Just it's like 6, it's like a lot of steps.

I mean, this is the same across all of big tech. Amazon, if you want to be in the golden buy box, You know, if you want to be top of search results, you have to pay. And the way they extract payment is that you have to use Amazon Media Group, you have to use their fulfillment, and then the algorithm slowly but surely puts you towards the top or deprioritizes you. And it's like, it's like having a store on Mars just because you're on Amazon unless you figure out a way to do pay for play. I've said for a long time, I think eventually it'll move from these companies getting paid by Apple to Apple extracting a lot of payments from them. I think with OpenAI though, they're now—

Well, Google pays Apple for those things, right? They do get paid for Maps.

I thought Apple paid Google $1 billion a year for access to a custom Gemini model.

So Google pays Apple to be the default search. But yes, Apple is paying Google around $1 billion for Gemini. That will possibly switch. But in this case, they did this deal with OpenAI, right? To make them the favored nation. At the time that they did it, we thought that was pretty smart of OpenAI to move in there on Gemini. And at the time, Claude was not that big a player. Right? So it was sort of a move on Gemini. And so, and here it didn't work out. And I bet Apple has all kinds of problems with their privacy issues and the sort of image around Sam, everything else, you know what I mean? Like, that's what it feels like to me. It's like, it's a regretful link or something. And maybe they aren't doing what it takes. But a lawsuit is not great for OpenAI, I assume, correct? Or not? Doesn't matter for Apple.

Well, the fear is, amongst OpenAI, is this hands Google Gemini the keys of the Apple universe. And that's the same keys they've possessed with search for 2 decades, right? And Apple routes Siri queries through its private cloud compute framework, claiming user data is never stored or used to train Google's models. And Apple evaluated, or claims they evaluated, OpenAI and Anthropic before choosing Google. I gotta think there's 20 billion reasons why Apple wants to maintain a good relationship with Alphabet.

Also, that could be a court case in a future Democratic administration too, right? Like, they're not, They've already been in trouble for those deals. That's always been part of the thing.

Well, that $20 billion accounts for about 20% of Apple's annual services revenue. So it's real. I mean, that is real. That's a very, that strikes me as the perfect relationship that fucks consumers.

Yes, exactly. They'll get paid. Apple will be the payee here. They're not gonna pay Google.

Oh no, no. They control the distribution, they control the interface, they control custody of the consumer. And it's the age-old argument of who's more important, the distribution or the manufacturer's brand. Brand. And there's, there's always an argument. And that— and then the companies that get really, really have extraordinary shareholder value always either reverse engineer into creating their own brands and controlling and taking advantage. They— everyone goes vertical at some point, or they forward integrate and start opening, you know, original Levi's stores. They start opening their own stores. But in the case of Apple, they've done a great job of deciding what they're going to go vertical on and what they should just extract a lump of flesh for. And I would— again, I've said this before— I think Apple's smart move, and as as far as I can tell, their strategy is to decide that around AI, they're going to be the toll booth and let whoever the highest bidder is be the default AI.

Yeah, it'll be questionable if they, as we talked about last week, about whether they do this with Siri, right? 'Cause Siri just sucks. Are they gonna make Siri better or use someone else's? Siri has never been intuitive. I spend more time arguing with Siri than anything else.

What I said— I think Oculus, and Siri are arguably, arguably two of the worst brands in tech over the last 10 years. I think they've become total clichés for shit that doesn't work or that doesn't live up to its, its potential.

Because a lot of the AI interface is going to be talking, right? Like, hey, like, like you're on the— like you're in Iron Man. So who does that?

Scarlett Johansson will be her, right?

Yeah, right. But who does— who is that company? Are they gonna— is Apple gonna default that, or is that going to be their thing because they, they— I wish someone would do like a really deep dive into what happened with Siri, why it's so bad and why it is under-resourced, or I don't really, I don't even know. But it seems to me like that's going to be the real interface is the voice, but maybe not. I don't know.

No, I think you're right. I think what, I think where it's shaping up, one of the big, the underappreciated or insights is But from a sensory perception, I think AI is going to be more about your ear canal than your cornea or your eyes. And that is truly seamless AI will be a function. And again, Apple will control the distribution with their AirPods. What you're saying is what will the branded voice be or will it be branded? I guess you'll have to say, "Hey, something," to prompt it.

Is it part of it? Who runs it? Who's the back? Anyway, I feel like there's a huge opportunity here for one of these AI companies because that's But you know, if anyone who's done a chatbot like this, it's really, it's the way to communicate. It's much faster. You don't have to type things in. It's much better. Anyway, speaking of, we may not get there 'cause as these companies fight, Americans are pushing back on data centers powering all of it, especially the AI. According to new Gallup polling, 7 in 10 Americans oppose constructing data centers in their local area. That's, well, no, Trump just had new polling. He's down even further. But they don't like Trump, they don't like data centers. Opposition cuts across every major demographic and political group, although Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to strongly oppose these data centers. But Republicans don't like 'em either. Like, let's be clear. It's pretty interesting that it's something that's quite bipartisan. You know, a lot of people think this is gonna be the biggest, I do too, when you hear from people, especially as Elon like runs roughshod over the Tennessee town with his methane engines or whatever, with these colossus, it just creates this feeling I don't know what it is.

It's like these rich fuckers are fucking with our environment now, right? And not to our benefit, essentially. But your thoughts on this?

I think it's the same reason that all these commencement speakers got booed when they mentioned AI. I think, I mean, first off, no one is using AI more than college students. And there's also some evidence that it's not the demand on the electricity or the environmental concerns that, I mean, some people will argue, quite frankly, that has been exaggerated. I would like to see the scientific evidence on that, but there's just no getting around it. What this represents is the following: whether you're booing Eric Schmidt or, or rallying against a data center, Americans see their prices going up and they're not participating in the wealth creation of AI. And it's just a proxy for income inequality that, okay, I hear about, you know, Anthropic is worth $1 trillion. San Francisco real estate prices are booming. Jet sales are booming. There are 28-year-olds who are lucky enough to get a job in coding at OpenAI who are selling $7, $10, $15 million in stock. And I can't afford detergent. I can't, I'm worried about food costs. And so when I hear a data center's going up 40 miles from me in Utah, I show up to the protest whether or not I see direct evidence of it hurting me or not.

This is a way of saying AI has become indicative of income inequality. And so when anyone shows up at a commencement speech and starts lecturing them on AI, or they hear about a data center, I think this is essentially a vessel of people just filling it. And I don't want to diminish their concerns. I think there are some real questions that need to be answered around these data centers. But I feel mostly this is a vessel for people's rage around, it seems like everyone is doing well except for me. And that America's giant bet on AI is paying off for a small group of people and I'm not part of that group.

Why not the companies themselves and why these? 'Cause I guess data centers are physical, right? They're here, they're there, they seem—

Yeah, it gives you somewhere to go protest.

It's also dystopian, right? They feel dystopian. They feel like they're probably not gonna have a lot of people running them. It's not gonna provide the jobs. They're going around around local governments to try to, like, pay off people to put them in, in the way others— there are worries about the energy costs that will go up in these areas. There's, like, some real things. And then there's the pollution aspect. And I think Elon's, as usual, been, like, the, the poster child for abuse of poor people, right? These are usually in poor areas. Also, I think it's just even beyond the worries about things, it's more of a a creeping worry about what tech is. Again, the more villainous. They, they, we don't assume the best of these people ever, nor should we, that kind of thing.

Well, the one being planned in Utah that's sort of been the lightning rod or kind of embodies this one, they have the wrong spokesperson. Kevin O'Leary is seen as someone who's not that empathetic, an old white guy who just doesn't, he does not appeal to this, this cohort. It's going to be 2.5 times the envisioned data center that is gonna be 2.5 times the size of Manhattan. They have not figured out a way to communicate the economic benefits. And you're right, this notion that you could turn the lights off on these things during the day 'cause there's so few people working there. The bigger threat in my view, and of course we're not talking about this, but if you look at history, when we have spent more than 3% of GDP on any infrastructure buildout, whether it's the railroads where I think we got up to 10%, We did two big buildouts, whether it's the electrification and the highways. Remember the telco infrastructure buildout of the late '90s? Whenever we do that and go over above 3%, in 3 years there's a crash. Because— and what might make this crash especially severe is that railroads need upgrading every 50 years, telco every 20 years.

A data center is basically obsolete in 4 or 5 years. So I think there I think obviously you need to look at the environmental concerns, you need to look at energy costs, but I would imagine there's so much money on the line here that these companies and these city councils would be able to come to some sort of accommodation around how do we ensure the local populace does not see its electricity costs just go through the roof.

One would imagine, and I know the Trump administration has been trying to do that. I think the hiring of Dina Powell was the reason for that is she's very, as president of Meta, I think that's probably gonna be a lot of her jobs, these data centers worldwide, by the way. It's not just, it's also in the Mideast. It's also, 'cause they want to have big data centers there and they have much more control over their populace. But I do think it's sort of the last play of these governments not to put up with this. It's a really interesting dynamic of people who are sort of, years ago, one of the, Joe Kennedy Jr., I think I've said this, came, I went to his office and he was talking about Amazon putting in a warehouse into his district. And he goes, well, what do you— this is probably good for people. I said, oh no, it's, it's not good. It's not going to be good for people. They're not here to help. They're here to help themselves. I think people at their very core understand, as you were saying, that this is not for them. This is for others to benefit, and it's not to help them in any way.

So why should we give up environmental stuff or more energy prices more than environmental?

Anyway, the curb. Or the retail story or the COVID story is we're worried about environmental and demands on the grid. I think what's really going on here is this is just rage at income inequality and big tech and the data center is the manifestation. And—

You can see it.

That we can see it and protest against it. I think this is, I think whenever we get to these levels of income inequality, we have war, famine, or revolution. I would argue we have all three of those, but revolution always takes on a different complexion. I think what we have now is a series of small revolutions and they're going after people they, generally speaking, big tech, old people, white people, rich people. Okay, tell me you're involved in a data center without telling me you're involved in a data center.

Yeah, Kevin O'Leary shows up with his multimillion dollar house.

I mean, he's literally the worst spokesperson in the world for this shit.

Did you see that outfit he was wearing? I was like, oh my God, you literally look like the guy, you know, the Monopoly man. That's what he looks like, the Monopoly man. Like it just is not, I'm not a fan of Mr. Trump.

Yeah, it's only a matter of days before you see AOC and Bernie Sanders at these sites whipping people up into a frenzy. It'll be like the modern-day equivalent when Bob Barker used to go to animal shelters and just go crazy and—

Yeah, yeah, it's true. Yeah, we'll see where it goes. Now speaking of this, which I think is getting people furious too, and I do think this is, the new financial disclosures show Trump or his investment advisors made more than 3,700 stock trades in the first quarter of 2026. Involving hundreds of millions of dollars. The filings show major buys in companies like Nvidia, Boeing, Intel, Microsoft, and Oracle, many of which are directly affected by Trump administration policy decisions, as the FCC chairperson Anna Gomez calls billionaire buddy deals. In the case of Palantir, Trump made at least 7 purchases of the stock totaling as much as $530,000 in March, then just happened to praise the company on Truth Social after shares suffered their worst week in a year the following month. I mean, uh, What does it actually take to have consequences here? And does it all end up with Trump, or has he permanently changed what Americans will tolerate from presidents? Because this is like, there's a grift. I literally feel like he's going to start taking milk money from kids, like, at some point, if you remember that expression. I just, this is like, is there anywhere he doesn't cheat and advantage himself in a way that's like really obvious grift?

Like obvious and really kind of upsetting grift?

Well, I think, I think you asked exactly the correct question, and that is what can be done about it? I'm just, I'm, I wanna move past the Democrats' indignation and constantly bitching about it, but no real ideas on how to stop it. And so let's set the table here to your point about a level of grift that is just absolutely unprecedented. He has executed more than 3,700 trades in the first quarter of 2026. He's doing 40 trades a day. By the way, throughout his life, it's not like he's someone addicted to trading on Robinhood and this is just him, you know, Trump being Trumpy. He usually didn't make this many trades in a year. And all of a sudden he has access to influence around these companies and he's decided to start trading stocks. Trump bought $500,000 to $1 million in Nvidia stock one week before his Commerce Department approved Nvidia chip sales to China. Somewhere between $1 and $5 million the week before they announced a major deal with Meta. He bought Dell stock before he started carving up TikTok and giving it to, wait for it, Michael Dell. The same with Oracle. And we have unfortunately relied on a series of norms that has resulted in every president since LBJ using a blind trust.

Obama did index funds and treasury bills. Everyone else has put their stuff into a blind trust. He claims his trust is blind-ish because his sons operate it, who are the same people roaming around extracting a pound of flesh.

And on the trips to China, just here to support dad. Like, give me a fucking break.

So look, insider trading or the veil or the appearance of insider trading has essentially defined Trump's second term. Just before our Liberation Day, More than a dozen government officials made well-timed stock sales. What a coincidence. So his meme coin hit a $27 billion market cap inauguration week with 58 anonymous wallets making over $1 billion dumping it while 800,000 retail investors lost $2 billion combined. 15 minutes before Trump announced Iran peace talks, $500 million in oil futures and $1.5 billion in S&P futures traded hands.

Cow shit trading. Who knows if he's doing that?

It's absolutely, so let's be clear, there appears to be an unprecedented pattern of information that seems to be only available from Trump or people surrounding him engaging in what feels like either market manipulation or what could classically be defined as insider trading. And the damage there is it's not only a conflict of interest in skewing their decisions, it creates a lack of trust in the markets where people think, if I don't have insider information, I shouldn't buy stocks 'cause the person buying or selling stock has more information than me, and you start to see Russia, which has a total stock market value of what our stock market trades about every 7 seconds, and you lose access to cheap capital and your whole economy starts to decline because companies can't find pools of capital that are formed based on a certain rule of law and fair play. The question is, okay, great, now what do we do about it? And this is where I think the Democrats again have fallen short, and that is we're long on indignation but we're short on ideas. And I believe that someone running for president should say, one of my first acts is I'm gonna work with the following states' AGs.

I think there's been insider trading. I think they'll have to discourage at a minimum their profits, including Democrats, including Democrats who've engaged in insider trading. I think there has been wire fraud. I think there has been effectively what announced defense concerns or violations of the Emoluments Clause. I'm gonna go after cabinet members, I'm gonna go after their sons to the letter of the law. And the key here is I'm gonna do it with the following state AGs such that this legal action is not exempted or protected by a presidential pardon. But somebody needs to lay this shit out. We are, I mean—

Well, Rahm Emanuel has, others have, several have.

Let me be clear. Well, Rahm is the only one.

He just laid it out in a paper.

Rahm is the only one who's actually moved to the ideas part of, I worry we are We're going to be in for a rude awakening if we think we're gonna win just based on indignance and hating Trump. It's gotta be, all right, what are you gonna do about it? And the way you get legitimacy here is one, by saying any Democrat that's engaged in this bullshit, which they have, we're going after as well. And also don't think a presidential pardon is gonna get you out of this, folks, 'cause this comes down to incentives. And until these people believe they could be subject to something on January 21st, 2028, or excuse me, 2029, They're gonna continue to engage in it.

Right, 'cause these are easy, you know, these cases are much easier to win, by the way, in terms of—

There's digital proof everywhere.

That's right. I have told you this, but there is a group of technologists who are saving crypto things for later. Like, so later when it happens, like when you can do something like this, they'll be sure.

Yeah, they have prints on the trades.

Yes, they have been watching it, they've been collecting it, and they're holding it. And so there are, there's an ability to track this stuff, folks. And you're absolutely right. This grift has got to be, they're not gonna, Some of them are gonna— look, Trump probably is gonna walk away. Let's be clear. Unfortunately, getting our hands on him is gonna be pointless, anger-filled.

Let biology take care of it.

Let him. He's old. Like, he is not gonna be gotten. But the sons of these people and the Lutniks of the world, all these people, it feels so dirty. Like what's happening with Whitkopf and all these kids are like swanning around. I can tell you they're swanning around Washington and they're is dumb and dumber doesn't even begin to describe them. And they're just on the make and it's grotesque. It's just grotesque what's going on here. And let me tell you, the people who are mad about data centers, they're also taking advantage of you everywhere else. And so fuck you is their, how to fuck you is their operating principle. And they can do it in a shortcut way without working at it. That's their favorite way. And so I agree with you. This is what, any Democratic person wants to come and talk to us, we will give you a speech for you to do this. Um, anyway, we have to go on a, on a quick break. Uh, when we come back, Elon Musk's plan to make sure no one can fire him from SpaceX. Another monarchy. Support for this show comes from Vanta.

If you're a business owner, you might have noticed that risk and regulation are on the rise. Customers now want proof of security before they commit, and earning that trust is critical to closing deals. But the process Compliance can be expensive, complex, and time-intensive. Vanta says that's the challenge they're here to solve. Vanta automates your compliance process to bring compliance, risk, and customer trust together in one AI-powered platform. So whether you're prepping for a SOC 2 or running an enterprise GRC program, Vanta keeps you secure and keeps your deals moving. Vanta automates the process of achieving and maintaining compliance with over 35 security and privacy frameworks. This helps companies get compliant fast and remain compliant, opening doors to major growth growth opportunities and freeing up valuable time. Vanta says companies like Ramp and Reuters spend 82% less time on audits with Vanta. That's not just faster compliance, it's more time to scale. So if you're tired of sifting through old audits and spreadsheets, you can get a system that's always working in the background, keeping you compliant, reducing risk, and helping your business scale fast and with confidence. You can get started at vanta.com/pivot. That's V-A-N-T-A vanta.com/pivot. vanta.com/pivot. Support for the show comes from Upwork.

Scaling a business takes the right expertise at the right time. Upwork helps growing teams quickly bring in specialized freelancers so you can move faster and take the business to the next level. Upwork is a one-stop platform to find, hire, and pay expert freelancers, letting you delegate and then just keep it moving. Moving. You can find specialized talent across web and software development, data and analytics, marketing, business operations, and more. Browse profiles, review their past work, and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence. You can also enjoy the benefits of Business Plus, which gives you access to the top 1% of talent on their platform. With AI-powered shortlisting, you'll get matched to the right freelancer in under 6 hours. Skip the endless searching, and you don't have worry yourself with the operational stuff. Upwork has contracts and payments covered. It's free to sign up and posting a job is easy. Visit upwork.com/pivot right now and post your job for free. That is upwork.com/pivot to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's upwork.com/pivot, upwork.com/pivot. Support for this show comes from DeleteMe. DeleteMe makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online.

Line at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. You don't have to be a public figure to be at risk of having your personal information stolen. The terrifying reality is that we're all susceptible, and the impact of identity theft can be devastating. Delete.me can help protect your personal privacy or the privacy of your business from doxxing attacks before sensitive information can be exploited. I use Delete.me quite regularly. I'm always shocked about how much information is there about me and how easy it is to delete me using the really good dashboard. Last year, the New York Times Wirecutter named DeleteMe their top pick for data removal services. So what are you waiting for? Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for DeleteMe now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/pivot and use enter promo code PIVOT at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindelete.me.com/pivot and enter code PIVOT at checkout. That's joindelete.me.com/pivot, code PIVOT. Scott, we're back with more news. SpaceX is expected to file for its IPO this week, which will be interesting.

I'm excited for you to read it and tell me all about it. At a valuation of roughly $2 trillion, aiming to go public June 12th on NASDAQ. We're also learning about More about the governance structure. No surprise, CEO Elon Musk would control a supermajority of Class B stock with 10 times the voting power of ordinary shares. This is not uncommon. Google and other companies have this, uh, Meta, things like, or a version of this. The prospectus says Elon can only be removed by Class B shareholders, and he will control the election and removal of directors as long as he holds his stake. Investors are warned this will limit or preclude your ability to influence corporate matters. It's already in place right now, by the way. But come on, of course he's going to do this. And there's another, yet another incentive for Elon. If SpaceX reaches a $7.5 trillion valuation and it establishes a 1 million person colony on Mars, he could receive up to $200 million in shares. Let's talk about this board membership, Scott, because you've been an investor, you've been a board member. Elon defended on X writing, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making Life multi-planetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone's bullshit quarterly earnings bonus.

In other words, he doesn't want to have a public company, but he wants the benefits of a public company. Only thing I will say here, he truly does believe in this multi-planetary extending consciousness. This is not marketing on his behalf. He has a demented loony idea that humanity will die and he should be the god of Mars. And speaking of war, but your thoughts on this entire thing besides monarchy and godlike feelings that he has?

Well, just a brief history of dual-class shareholder companies. They were originally invented by media companies who claimed they wanted to pursue journalism without the vagaries.

New York Times.

Well, yeah, a bunch of them actually. Almost a lot of them said, and there's some legitimacy there, these families said, we don't want someone who hates us to show up and start dictating editorial control, so we want to maintain control. Whether you believe that or not, fine. But then the first tech company to do that was the Google guys.

Google.

Mm-hmm. They said, we want two classes of shares. And what's interesting is in the late '90s, there was a rumor that Sequoia was trying to sell its shares in a private Google because they clashed, they really clashed with Sergey and Larry who demanded two classes of shares. And that was so unusual.

It was.

And Sequoia thought, was you're not gonna be able to get public. You're not a newspaper company, you're not a journalism company, you're a tech company. And basically Google then, everybody else has followed in Google's footsteps. Now, to be fair to Musk, you know, when I went on the board of the New York Times and was the largest shareholder, I, all I really was was heckling from the cheap seats and effectively an advisory board because the family, which now gets 10 seats and everybody else gets 5 seats. So while you get some sort of representation, you really don't have— at the end of the day, the family decides what they're going to do over Thanksgiving dinner. The Ford family's the same way. They own very few shares, but they control the company. And tech has figured this out. So this is nothing new. And to be fair, most of the academic studies have shown that dual-class shareholder companies have not vastly underperformed single-share companies.

Yeah, I don't think that's the issue.

Issue.

It's— but you can't be fired.

Oh, he's in charge. And not only that, but I mean, this is where the shit'll get crazy, and I can't wait to read the S-1. You know, Adam Neumann wanted his kids to inherit the company, and Musk is saying so. But the reality is shareholders have a choice around whether they want to buy shares. And what you do with a tool class shareholder company is, one, eventually you get a bad king, and two, you take out a premium of, of a possible takeover. And that is Warner Bros. Discovery. When AT&T spun Warner Brothers, they demanded a single-class share stock such that the company could be put into play. And whenever a company is a single-class share company, it usually trades theoretically at a bit of a premium because someone could come in and buy it. So this is just, you have to decide whether you believe in Musk. And to be also just, the market says, people are not only willing to put up a dual-class shareholder company, They're willing to buy at what are errant, abnormal, extraordinary valuations because of Musk's involvement. But this is— these super voting shares started with media companies or newspaper companies, then leaked into tech, and now almost everyone is doing it when they go public.

Right. I, I, that, that I don't fault him on. Like, of course. And he, by the way, he's been running Tesla like that anyway without having this kind of thing, right? It doesn't matter. The, the board has does whatever he wants. It's a completely bought and paid for board essentially. And so he gets that shares and he always threatens to leave and he throws a fit and it just didn't work at OpenAI. That's what happened there. They're like, "Yeah, we'll be fine without you." And they were for a time. So I think this is not an unusual thing and you do have to realize he's not gonna, he is a key man here. It's just that one bad night in Austin And you know, that's the problem with all this stuff. Or he loses interest like he's done at Tesla. Now the shares have stayed up because it's a meme stock, but the company's not headed in the right. He's just lost interest in it. And is, you know, that's the problem you have here is these single monarchies. Same thing with Zuckerberg. He happens to be vibrant right now, but boy has he made a series of idiotic moves that would've gotten other people fired and he won't be fired.

And it is part of a mentality of I am the king, I am the god. That you have got to buy into, but it has enormous risk because it's all based, predicated on one person. And sometimes that's good, but sometimes that's not so good. Like, I just feel like that means buyer beware, essentially.

You can do well. I think that Musk, I think there's no way to build a company like SpaceX or Tesla without having a ton of good people around him. The reason why the Messiah complex comes into play effect, and that is no one is allowed to get near— I'm pretty sure the fastest way to get fired at Tesla or SpaceX is to ever say anything at a mic. Only Elon is allowed to talk. This is all about Elon. He's the genius. We don't— there is no Ruth Porat, you know, there is no Tim Armstrong, there is no— there's no one else anyone's allowed. You're locked in the basement.

Can I just interject? When I wanted to interview Gwynne Shotwell years and years ago at one of my Code conferences, they said, only Elon will speak to you. Like, I was like, what are you talking about? She's obviously doing an amazing job. Like, I really wanted to focus.

No, no, no.

No, no.

It's all about Elon.

Only Elon. And I was like, I remember at the time being like, well, that's fucked up. 'Cause she deserves, like, I wanna hear from her anyway.

But what I would suggest investors do when the S-1 comes out, and I'm gonna spend some time on this, is not focus on the dual-class shareholder structure, but simple, basic, boring stuff or the boring knitting of valuation. And that is the following. At some point, an amazing company is a shitty investment if it gets too expensive. And at some point, a shitty company is an amazing investment if it gets cheap enough. And let's just talk about valuation here. Google IPO'd trading at about 10 times trailing revenue and it was growing revenues 240% before the IPO. So 10 times revenue growing 240% a year. Meta IPO'd at 28 times trailing revenue and growing revenues at 88% a year before the IPO. Saudi Aramco IPO'd Comcast, 5 times trailing revenue, growing revenues 41% a year. SpaceX will IPO at 109 times trailing revenue, growing revenues at 20% a year. So, and to be clear, space is the ultimate addressable market. They have moats the size of the Amazon, but it's going out at 10 times the valuation on a multiple basis as Google did with a tenth of the growth. And then if you just wanna look at valuations, Amazon went public at $900 million, Microsoft at $2.3 billion, Apple at $7 billion, and Google at $40 billion.

And what SpaceX is targeting, $2 trillion. So all I have to say is, is SpaceX an amazing company or is it massively overvalued? The answer's yes.

Yes. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Well, we'll see. And you can still do well. Okay. Moving on very quickly. Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy lost his Republican primary after President Trump targeted him in retaliation for voting to convict him in his impeachment trial 5 years ago. Trump-backed Representative Julia Letlow, who finished ahead with about 45% of the vote. On Truth Social, Trump celebrated the loss, saying that Cassidy's disloyalty to the man who got him elected is now part of legend. And it's nice to see that his political career is over. Cassidy took a swipe at Trump during his concession speech. So let's listen to a clip.

And when you participate in democracy, sometimes it doesn't turn out the way you want it to. But you don't pout, you don't whine, you don't claim the election was stolen, you don't find a reason why, you don't manufacture some excuse. You thank the voters for the privilege of representing the state or the country for as long as you've had that privilege.

So interestingly, also just in related stories, Supreme Court blocked an effort to revive Democratic-backed Virginia congressional map that could have flipped several GOP House seats. The map had been approved by voters but struck down by Virginia Supreme Court. And Supreme Court did not give a reason for denying the emergency appeal in the order. They usually don't meddle with Supreme Courts, really, is what I'm told. So there's some worry that Democrats should worry about the political environment. Others feel, no, that it's not the case. It was a good thing to have, but not a must-have. I mean, this Cassidy thing is interesting 'cause suddenly again, like Tom Tillis, he's found his balls and he does have until January to do something about it. He's the one that backed RFK and even though he knew better, he did a lot. He voted yes for Pete Hegseth, shouldn't have done it. Now can be regretful of it. I know Tillis took a really big slap at Hegseth this week. These two could make trouble for Trump until January, quite a bit of trouble. But as Tillis did with the, with around the, Fed chairman vote. So what do you think about this?

I mean, democracy is democracy, and Trump has power in these states. So thoughts about both things?

I'm torn because I understand, I'm sympathetic to the notion that you can't do good if you don't get elected. And this is no longer the Republican Party, it's MAGA. It puts these people in a very difficult position. I also think there's some legitimacy to the argument that Bill Cassidy should lose his medical license because to Oh. To be— well, he was the swing vote.

I know that.

I couldn't believe it. That got RFK. I mean, I've said this before, no one is doing more damage abroad than Secretary Hagseth. No one is doing more damage to children domestically than RFK Jr. Measles is on the rise.

I know, you tweeted.

I mean—

It's repulsive. He's a murderer.

He's a murderer. And this is the doctor. He took a Hippocratic oath. He took an oath, and he confirmed a guy he knew was creating fear and insecurity around our medical, our great medical institutions and around, and demonizing vaccines. And he's a fucking doctor. I mean, so I wanna feel some glee here, but here's the problem. It was good to have a doctor on many of these panels. He was about as reasonable as they came. The person that's probably gonna replace him is gonna be worse. So this is just one of those things. It's like shavings of shit on a shit salad. And it's fun to be gleeful about it and say, "Senator Cassidy, you're—" You know, the only thing I know that's gonna come of this is, "Oh my God, wait and see the testicles that this senator is suddenly about to find he has." Yes, he just did. Just watch him on Bill Maher. All of a sudden, he's gonna turn into a truth teller. Teller. I can't wait to see what he says about RFK now. And the problem is, folks, that's not when we need your testicles. That's correct. That's not when we need you to be a leader.

So I, I, I just think this is— you look left, you look right, and this is shit avenue. Because he was a reasonable guy. You do need medical professionals on these panels to say, okay, one of us is a doctor, everyone else shut the fuck up. I think that training does pay off. I believe in expertise. I believe in credentials. I believe in peer-reviewed research. I believe in science. And so should America. We need more doctors, I think, in, in Congress. The person who replaces him— and he must be pissed off because, quite frankly, while they're saying he came in third, he actually barely lost because he got 25. The other candidate who was anti-Trump, or not a Trumpy, got 28. So if he had just gotten 28 or 29, He might have won in the general. I gotta be honest though, you know what I'm so excited to see? What? Oh my God, he's going after village idiot Lauren Boebert. Oh, he's going after Lauren Boebert. And I just wanna say, I'm gonna host a fundraiser for Boebert, and it's gonna be whoever wins, she has to go on a date with your 17-year-old son.

I think she is the best date for a high schooler. Oh my God. She'll let you grope her.

I'm gonna, all right, we're moving on. She does cheat, babe. Moving on. She goes to Beetlejuice.

All right. Where were you when I was 17, Representative Boebert?

No, you didn't say anything about the Democratic thing in Virginia. Briefly, because we got to move on.

But I said this last week. We're hoping that redistricting is beat by vibes. I just don't think there's any way to polish this.

This is bad for Democrats. Yeah, I think he can't deny polling. Polling is polling, and everywhere it happens, you got to win By winning the votes. That's the way you gotta do it.

Well, but, but I take the other side of that. If you gerrymander enough, you can win, you can win more than you deserve. Yes.

I still think it's an overwhelming, it's gonna be a train. I hope, I hope you're right. The latest polling. All right. Well, we'll see.

We'll see. And by the way, another, another talking point, Pete, Pete or Rahm, this is my grid. I took a grid. It's, it's my, my 8-year-old did it. You know, Pete has little kids. He draw, he drew 8 lines. Lines exactly equidistant horizontally, and he put it on top of the US map. And this is what I'm going to propose for congressional districts. I'm going to de-gerrymander the United States. I think that is a great talking point right now.

Yeah, that's another good one. Uh, let's go on a quick break. We come back, the reality star in the LA mayoral race. Hi, I'm Maria Sharapova, host of the Pretty Tough Podcast. Each episode, I sit down with high-achieving women to discuss the pursuit of excellence without apology. This week on the show, comedian and bestselling author Chelsea Handler gives her tips on independence and aging gracefully. I would argue that 50, now that I am 50 and I understand life more than I did when I was 30 or 40, is that you get so much more wisdom and you get so much more experience that you actually feel like you're beginning again. Check out Pretty Tough, new episodes on Wednesdays. You can watch Watch it on YouTube or listen in your favorite podcast app.

Support for the show comes from Klaviyo. There's only so many hours in a day. Klaviyo's two powerful AI agents can make sure your team spends them on big things. The first Klaviyo AI agent turns your marketing ideas into reality instantly. Describe what you want, a holiday campaign, a VIB re-engagement series, and Klaviyo builds it instantly. Email, SMS, and push. All core coordinated, on-brand, grounded in 14 years of Klaviyo marketing data. Nothing goes live without your say-so. The other Klaviyo AI agent keeps your customers happy at any hour, brand-trained to answer questions, make product recommendations, and handle orders and returns. No hold music. Marketing that launches instantly. Support that never sleeps. Join more than 193,000 brands including Away, Patrick Ta, and Dollar Shave Club, already growing with Klaviyo, the autonomous B2C CRM. Get started at klaviyo.com.

Why is this— it's still like burning inside of me that I feel like I am missing something. I prayed so hard for my girls. I prayed like every night, prayed, prayed, prayed. And when I lost my babies, it was so hard. So that when I had them, I thought that was going to be the thing. Like, I am finally getting the thing that I prayed for and it's going to fulfill me and this is everything I want and more. And it was, but it was also something missing. I'm Raven Arisson, and this is Motherhood: The Remix from Project Swagger. This series is about defining our own version of motherhood. I am ringing in a mama I adore and admire, my friend, fellow Peloton instructor Kirsten Ferguson. Listen now at Project Swagger. Scott, we're back with more news. This one, oh my God, you could have run for mayor of Los Angeles at this point. Spencer Pratt, formerly a reality show, The Hills and a generally awful person, is unexpectedly emerging as a contender in the Los Angeles mayor's race. I'm not so clear he's going to win, but he's got the mo'. Despite his lack of political experience, Pratt has gained traction through viral social media campaigning and support from figures like Joe Rogan and Elon Musk.

Of course, Elon Musk. Pratt has built his campaign around frustration with the cost of living and the city's response to wildfires, which destroyed his own home. A lot of reporting by Harvey Levin has shown most of the stuff he's saying to be nonsense. Nonsense. Thank God for TMZ at this point. He's signed up, of course, an unscripted series following his bid to be mayor and going into mayor, of course, because this is all a scam with Spencer Pratt. And elsewhere in California politics, which seems insane at this particular juncture, California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer is under investigation after his campaign paid influencers to post favorable content without clearly disclosing it was sponsored. California law requires paid political content to include disclaimers, as it should, and state regulators are now looking into whether those rules violated. Both Democratic and Republican groups reportedly spent millions of this type of endorsement over the past few campaign cycles. It's very— it's propaganda. Um, so reality stars, influencers, of course it's California. Spencer fucking Pratt, like, what in the fuckity fuck? And a lot of people donate to him, by the way, don't live in Los Angeles, but that's neither here nor there.

Thoughts?

I had a friend call me and ask me to have him on the Raging Moderates pod. And like a reality TV star, he lost his house in the Palisades. He's very good on camera. He understands social media. Uh, he's got a lot of momentum. He's running against what I think is a weak candidate and a frustrated populist. LA has become a little bit like— I would describe it as Cape Town. There are some areas of Cape Town, I think this is the nicest place in the world, and then if you venture a few minutes outside of them, it gets really ugly really fast. And the homeless problem You know, I think it's fair for people to say, I'm paying some of the highest taxes in the nation and I have to walk this way to my kids to school so they don't see a homeless man masturbating or shitting in the streets. That, you know, you can understand the amount of bureaucracy trying to deal with the fires. A lot of people don't like the way the fires are. This is ripe for somebody to challenge Karen Mayor Bass. Ass. Where I land on the phone is the following: Spencer Pratt embraced Alex Jones, said 9/11 was an inside job, and brought up doubt about Sandy Hook.

Go fuck yourself. I would vote for anyone over someone who has embraced Alex Jones. Disqualifies you to run one of the great cities in the world. So this guy is evidence again of revolution and people so angry and so that. I hope— and it's also evidence of just how hard it is to find reasonably competent people to run for office. Like Rick Caruso was supposed to challenge her. Yeah, Rick would've been great. I'm trying to get my friend Jamie Patrickoff to run. He's nice, he loves LA, he has the money, which is important. He's pragmatic, he's a business person. None of these people wanna put their family or themselves through this bullshit. Right, right. Also, somebody has to come in and take on many of the special interest groups, including unions, including entrenched Democrats, That's— and it is a— a lot of people will say, people who really thoughtful go, LA, like California, has become nearly ungovernable. And that is the special interest groups are so entrenched and so hard to overcome. There's so much bureaucracy. It is so hard to find talented people to try and do this. Everybody wants theirs and that it's becoming very difficult.

But Spencer Pratt?

I know, it's just amazing that some people are backing this guy. This guy, and by the way, I'm not kidding about Harvey Levin. He actually showed how much he was living at the Bel Air Hotel. And was pretending to— Anyway, look, there's frustration over everything. A lot of the stuff that he's talking about is not the responsibility of Bass, but there's anger at Bass about how she handled that. No question. There's anger and frustration about homelessness. There's anger and frustration. But your choice is not to go with Spencer fucking Pratt, by the way, who's just one con after another. He really is. He really is. And lie and con after another. There's another council member who's also showing some, a little bit, not momentum, but some numbers who had backed Bass and now is running against Bass, probably should, I hate to say this, but probably strike some sort of deal with Bass, step down and let— She will probably win Bass because she's, there's no Latinos or Black people are voting for Spencer Pratt. And it's all outside money. It's all people who have very little interest in it. But he is articulating an anger, even if he's the worst vessel possible.

That's exactly right. But this guy makes Trump look like a genius. Like, let me just say, this is not even close. It would be such an embarrassment for this to happen. In San Francisco, you get Daniel Lurie, someone who's a really— who's doing a good job. And by the way, I still don't think London Breed did the worst job of all. It just was she had a lot of stuff that got piled up on top of her and didn't have the tools because of different legal things that got passed later that she couldn't deal with the homeless issue there. But now Lurie can. You need someone like Lurie. Like, find someone like that, like, who is gonna be, like, maybe a little more centrist than the left wants, maybe a little not as conservative as others want, right? Someone who's gonna try to solve problems and at least make an attempt to do so. And instead, this laughable, like, con man is the person you're picking and full of constant lies. It'll be a disaster for Los Angeles, which is one of the most beautiful places on Earth. And if they could be— Now, Los Angeles compared to San Francisco is a quantum level of difficult.

Of running. It just is. Like, let's be clear. And— But this is not what you want. I think Bass has started to acknowledge the problems, is saying all the right things. It's likely she'll win. But the momentum for this fucking clown, especially— Let me tell you, anyone who calls me from Los Angeles, and several have, that say they're looking at them, we are no longer friends. Like, sorry. Just sorry. Like, really.

But the reason they're looking at him, quite frankly, you're being very generous to Mayor Bass. Bass. Right.

I am, I am. I agree. I think she's— she has not been great, but this is the choice you have, right?

This is fair enough. But there's a couple takeaways here. Mayor Lori and Democrats, especially Democrats in executive roles, not legislative roles, there's a difference. Governor and mayor, it's an executive role. Agree. And what Mayor Lori is doing, and every Democratic mayor needs to take a lesson, a note out of this pagebook, and governor, because if Democratic governors and mayors can't figure out a way to not make their cities come across as shitholes, it is gonna be very hard for them to run. They've gotta show they have the ability to say no to special interest groups and be about blocking and tackling such that they focus on quality of life issues. And what Mayor Lurie has done that is so impressive is if you ask him about Israel, if you ask him about Ukraine, if you ask him even about a national issue, bodily autonomy, that doesn't directly affect right now San Franciscans who have access to family planning, He says, "I'm not gonna talk about it. That's not why I'm here." Every mayor and governor in the United States thinks that their mayoral or their governorship is a kickoff campaign for them to run for president.

Yeah, I agree. No, get the subways to run on fucking time. Figure out the way the trash gets picked up. Figure out a way to strike a deal with the unions if you're dealing with that such that they make good livings, but it's not, they're not making $180,000 a year for the 40 years.

100% agree with you, Scott.

In retirement. Retirement. I agree. Stop talking about national and international issues. No one gives a fuck what you think. Run the city. And that is exactly what Mayor Lurie's doing. And he's very popular and he's getting a lot of support and he's getting shit done and he's making hard decisions around homelessness and around municipal transportation. The other thing I wanna say that'll be, Tom Steyer has basically been accused of astroturfing. I mean, that's effectively what it is. You're paying for people who endorse you to you who don't disclose their endorsement. Okay, so is everyone else. Right, right, I get it. When Mumdani was running and I said anything about the mayoral race, hundreds of comments from bots. You're gonna tell me they somehow weren't connected to money and his campaign?

No, it's a part of modern political life.

And so if Tom Steyer does an Astro Astroturf, then good for him and he's gonna lose. This is now the world we live in. Unless the platforms figure out an airtight way to get rid of anonymous accounts, and unless they start going after agencies that claim to be PR and comms firms, you are— let me go further. You're stupid not to astroturf back because everyone's doing it to you.

It is, it's just that there's gotta be a way to solve this 'cause it's such, like, it's so noisy.

The platforms have to do it.

No, absolutely, it's so noisy we can't hear what people are saying. In this case, It looks like probably Becerra looks like he's surging ahead at this point. But that whole California race has been insane. Like all of them have got to, someone needs to knock heads there, but no one could knock heads anymore, right? So it's sort of a race to be an influencer or something or some version of cheap and dirty. And that's a real shame. It really is. It's, you know, California's an important state and should be governed by serious people. Both its cities are important cities. They've led the way on innovation. Whether they have troubles now, that's a different issue. But you know, Taking governance as a joke. And that's the real ugliness of the Trump administration, creating everything like a grift and a joke.

Tap into anger. Great social media. Mm-hmm. He's playing you folks.

And you're going to have to— I wish there was an alternative to Bass that was serious. And I get why you would want to be behind it. But this, you're doing this, there's something wrong with you. There's something real wrong with you. Anyway, we'll see what happens. We'll see. He may just fade. 'cause he's such a, seems like such a village idiot, but we'll see. And if he wins, watch out fucking below.

I've watched some of his stuff. I'll give him, I think he's actually, he's got some of that Trump charisma. He does. He's got some of that. That's why he was a successful reality show. Anger and outrage tapping in. Again, this all comes back to the same thing. People are getting 110 notifications on their phone that everyone's making bank and has a house. Hot boyfriend or girlfriend except them. Everyone feels as if they're falling behind. And when you're falling behind and you're angry, chaos is your preferred candidate. That's correct. You're absolutely right.

Anyway, well, we'll see what happens there. I'd be interested— don't have Spencer Pratt on, if you don't mind. You can, but you have to whack the shit out of him.

No, Jess said, Jess said, if we do that, we have to have Mayor Bass on. And I'm like, I don't— I'm not going to platform anyone who said 9/11 is— was an inside job and is— and has shared the stage with Alex Jones. And other than saying, my heart goes out to the victims of Sandy Hook, that's just disqualifying. I'm doing a lot of virtue signaling right now, but those are red lines. Those are okay. Those are red lines for me.

Those are good virtues, I would say. They're not virtue signaling, it's virtues. They're virtuous. Virtuous. Those are good virtues. Uh, there are some good virtues, uh, these days. Anyway, one more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails.

Where exactly do U.S.-China relations stand? The Chinese side came in feeling as if they had figured out how to work both with and against Trump. He was inclined to try to create moments of crisis, and then if they stood up to him, they were almost uniquely capable of making him back down. I'm Preet Bharara, and this week Evan Osnos of The New Yorker joins me to discuss the Trump-Xi summit, which he reported on from Beijing. The episode is out now. Search and follow Stay Tuned with Preet wherever you get your podcasts.

This week on Net Worth and Chill, I'm telling you my entrepreneurial origin story— how I went from working a 9-to-5 and making internet videos on the side to walking away from a $625,000 a year job to take Your Rich BFF time. I'm breaking down exactly how I knew it was time to make the leap, how I set myself up financially so I wasn't just winging it, and what it actually takes to survive and thrive as your own boss. From cash flow to taxes to building multiple income streams. Because let's be real, becoming an entrepreneur sounds amazing until you realize you have to figure out all of this yourself. I did, and now I'm giving you the blueprint. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on youtube.com/yourrichlife. BFF. This week on Net Worth and Chill, we're joined by Danielle Robay, the journalist Forbes called the Queen of Questions and the host behind Reese Witherspoon's book club podcast and her own show, Question Everything. We're exploring a skill that can transform your career, relationships, and bank account: knowing how to ask the right questions. Danielle breaks down the art of getting real answers in professional settings, from coffee chats to career pivots, and shares the money conversations we should all be having but aren't.

Get ready for hard-hitting advice on defining success beyond the dollar signs, asking better money questions with partners and friends, and the mindset shifts that separate people who stay stuck from people who keep growing. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on youtube.com/yourrichbff.

Okay, let's do some wins and fails. Should I go first? You go first. Okay. I, I'm gonna put it as a win and a fail on both. Now, I love Stephen Covey. Colbert, right? I love him. I think he's really funny. I think he's gonna have an enormous career after he leaves. I think they're overdoing it on the goodbye tour. I have to say, it plays— I hate to agree with people, but it's like—

It's like a woman's birthday party that turns into a jubilee coronation for two fucking years. I just feel like, come on.

Leave already. We get it. Leave. But it's also like, it's the five white guys. I was like, you're not making yourself feel like— I get it. I'm pissed. I'm pissed myself about the takeover. I am. Them too. But I'm not gonna go on about it. That said, what I did love is when they bring Letterman back, who I love when he's mad. I love a Letterman anger, and I think it's really funny, and that was sort of his brand. Sort of dyspeptic anger. And they threw the furniture, and then they threw the melons, and they threw the birthday cake off the roof. I thought that was so funny and just exactly all I needed. So that was my win and fail at the same time. And when he says, "Good night and good luck, motherfuckers," fuckers. That made me laugh hysterically. Like, do it in humor, but it's getting like, it's getting a little much. I, I, God, I can't believe Megan Kelly said a version of this, and I hate to agree with her, but, and I love Stephen Colbert, and I think he's got— I think they're not telling the truth about what happened here.

I do know that these shows are declining and this is the way it goes. They could have done a lot of other things, but just stick with the funny. And we all know you got fucked. Like, get it, but just go on and do great things. That's what I would say. I just am feeling a little bit like, okay boys, you know, there are lots of people that get fucked. So let's do something about it, as you say. All right, your win and fail. People are gonna be mad at me, but I love Stephen Colbert anyway.

Well, I have a fail and a prediction, and okay, so my fail is Nicholas Kristof and what I believe is a breakdown in standards at the New York Times. And his piece on Palestinian prisoners, I think is my fail. And not because the subject isn't serious and not because it's not, it's an important issue. I believe that our military operations in Western societies and democracies need to be held to a higher standard. And whether it's a second strike on a boat, not a Navy vessel with survivors and not giving them quarter, or the abuse of Palestinian prisoners, I think that the IDF should be held to a higher standard than any military in the Middle East. So it's not that it's not an important issue, but there's a line in the piece suggesting that dogs were trained to rape prisoners. That's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require a level of evidence that was not met here. Not vibes, not hearsay, not someone said. If you're going to publish something that incendiary, you need airtight sourcing, multiple corroborated on-the-record confirmations or clear documentation. And as someone who has a background or experience with Belgian Malinois and has come very close to adopting a canine dog, the notion that a dog can be trained to physically rape somebody, it's just fucking ridiculous.

And I feel that they're not informing the public. They're injecting a narrative accelerant into one of the most volatile conflicts on the planet. And here's the bigger problem. When legacy media outlets, especially one that has the prestige, the reputation, the talent of The New York Times, runs with claims like that that aren't bulletproof, they're not risking being wrong. They're risking a further erosion and trust in everything else that's true. And they hand ammunition to people who wanted to say, dismiss all reporting as biased or fabricated. And this isn't— I'm trying not to take sides here. I think this is about standards. War is where truth goes to die on both sides, which means journalism needs to be really disciplined. And if you lower the bar because the story aligns with your priors, you're no longer doing journalism, you're doing advocacy with a byline. And I think that these abuses, the ones that can be proven, get discounted because the media couldn't resist the most shocking version of the story. This reminds reminds me of all those stories about child soldiers that really upset people for the right reason. You take something innocent and talk about killing, taking dogs and combining it with rape.

It just— I read it and I thought, this is just over the fucking top for The New York Times.

Well, can I just— I'm not going to push back because I think there's a lot of controversy around this story that it was in the opinion section, that in this case, it probably— The New York Times reporters on the scene should written a follow-up story or something to talk about this. Now, Kristof is known as an excellent journalist, has done amazing work.

Pulitzer Prize.

Not just that, not just because he won the Pulitzer Prize, but like amazing work on all sorts of abuses across the world. And he's been accurate as a— he's a very good reporter too. But this was an opinion section piece, as you know. And The New York Times has been very supportive of him. But I think in this case, this should have been also reported because of the nature of it. You've got to have like extensive reporting on this, even if it— because it's so incendiary. And I think probably, I don't know what happened and they need to talk about it, but the New York Times is backing his reporting. The question is, should they do more reporting, right? On— and if this was the same allegations on the Israeli side, as Ben, has been, I mean, on the Hamas side of the same sexual abuses, same thing, right? Like allegations, same thing. And so that's what's important here is to do, as I think you double report stuff like this, triple report and quadruple report. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out because the Times has been backing him on this stuff.

And he is citing a lot of UN stuff. He's citing a lot of reports on the scene. He's citing a lot of stuff, but it requires extra reporting. As much as, you know, that may seem offensive to some, I think I do agree with you here. They've gotta really button it up in a way that, because of the incendiary nature and where it is at the same time, even if you have a side and you feel like, you know, that war does result in terrible abuses of the citizenry.

Yeah, I'm gonna defer to you on journalistic standards. I just read it and thought, But I have trouble— this seems so unbelievable that it required more than— more reporting, more evidence and better reporting than I felt was evident in the article. And then on something that is so important in terms of how we in the West, and I do consider Israel— Israel is an ally and part of the West— the standards they should be held to are really important and deserve they deserve scrutiny. I mean, I get it. People who, when people claim I'm not antisemitic, I'm anti-Israel, I say to them, you know, I can relate to that because I don't like Netanyahu, but I care so much about Israel that I would like to see Netanyahu voted out of office because I don't think they have acquitted themselves well in terms of many of the ways they have approached this conflict. I get it. But when you, 'Can you reduce the veracity of your reporting on this key issue and other ones by—' As someone, I don't feel like I have domain expertise around how prisoners are treated. I have some domain expertise around dogs, quite frankly.

And I just thought, okay, I have— I can't even— this is unimaginable for me, for someone who spent a lot of time around Belgian Malinois, for them to say that. And then I'm like, where's the evidence? Where's the proof? Where's the double the corroboration, the further investigation, and it wasn't there. And I thought it reminded me of when you see those in— just unthinkable pictures at the end of the war. Americans were really horrified by what they saw in concentration camps. They were almost as horrified by the Germans enlisting 14-year-olds and sending them to the front lines because you took children, something innocent, and you collided it with something heinous, killing other people. And I— this, this reeked of that to me. Let's find the most innocent creatures in the world, dogs, and let's combine it with rape.

Well, let me just read that for— just for this, for people to know. It'll— we'll see where it zeros out, but I'm assuming there's gonna— they're gonna do further reporting, would be my guess, internally. Um, and there's a lot of people saying they're gonna, they're gonna retract it. I— this is— Kristof has said this is not true. Um, this is the— this was the quote that the New York Times gave, just so we have it. There is no truth to this at all. Nicholas Kristof is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has reported on sexual violence for decades and is widely regarded as one of the best, the world's best on-ground reporters documenting and bearing witness to sexual abuse experienced by women and men in war and conflict zones. He traveled to the region to report firsthand on the stories of Palestinians who suffered abuse, and this article collects accounts of the victims' own words backed by independent studies. So we'll see. This has another chapter happening because they're getting such pushback, and including from Netanyahu. So I do I do hate to say you have to do extra reporting on certain topics, but I think you have to anticipate even if it's Netanyahu or whoever it happens to be and have everything locked up tight.

I would agree with you on that. Anyway, we'll see where it goes. I thought that was a productive conversation.

I appreciate it. Yes, no problem. No problem.

People are going to be mad anyway, no matter what.

There's no talking about this without everyone going to their corner. Yeah. And getting very upset, and I understand that. Look, my, this is, I'm not supposed to do prediction, but I couldn't help it. It just struck me as fairly obvious. You're going to see an invasion of some of the islands off the coast of China. Well, let me back up. Basically, my prediction is Kinmen and Matsu Islands are going to be invaded in the next 24 months or seized, and you're going to have what— by the Chinese. Yeah, you'll probably have an economic blockade. You can't have— I don't think an amphibious assault of Taiwan is feasible. And I think China, after seeing what's happened in Ukraine and Iran, and the fact there isn't a single, single person in the Chinese military who has any combat experience, I don't think they want to get— an amphibious landing in Taiwan is unthinkable. However, the Straits of Taiwan are where, where 50% of all shipping goes through. I think a soft economic blockade is coming for the following reasons. A chill went down my spine when on Air Force One Trump was asked if he would support and defend Taiwan, and he said, uh, I'm not going to let anybody know that.

What is clear to me, and the fact pattern is just so obvious here, is that Trump is concerned with one thing, and that is becoming the wealthiest man on the world. And I believe he sold out Taiwan in a private meeting at that summit. And evidence of that was, for the first time, an American president has said, well, I'm not going to say anything about how I feel about America's continued support of Taiwan. And it's not only turning our back on a democratic ally, but the basic, the basic counterbalance, counterbalances amongst, between US-Sino relations is the following: they control 90% of the processing of rare earth materials. We control 90% of the most advanced chips because, because of our tight relationship with Taiwan. If China gets access to those Taiwanese chips, which is another reason they wouldn't do an amphibious invasion because they don't want to destroy those factories, but if they use their economic clout to do what is effectively a soft creeping takeover of Taiwan and we're not there to support them, China has won.

100% won. It's the move. It's the move. If you were them, it's the move.

And I think Trump, I don't think Trump gives a shit about geopolitics, the decline of US negotiating leverage. I think he cares about one thing.

US consumers, he doesn't care about.

I think he cares about one thing. I think Xi, if I were Xi, I would've said the following, you realize I'm super interested in coin. And with just a fraction of our budget, I can use offshore accounts to take the Trump coin. I think I can get it worth— here's my math guy here— I think I can get it worth to be $200, $300 billion because price discovery's at the margins. I think I can take it there within, say, 90 days, 6 months before your presidency ends. And then you'll have 90 days to divest of your whole holdings. And by the way, is there any way you can move out Ohio-class submarines from all the Straits of Taiwan? And by the way, I think economic reintegration of Taiwan into the great nation of China would make sense without any bloodshed. What do you think? I think that conversation has already happened, and I think evidence of it was what he said on Air Force One. Yeah, he's in— and again, another talking point for a Democrat, we will back Taiwan economically and militarily if necessary because chips are the future. Don't, don't, don't get backed into a corner about threatening another forever war.

Say chips are the future, folks, and Taiwan is an amazing ally of ours. And the only reason that we have control over 90% of what is the new oil in an information economy, and that's chips— we cannot let Taiwan go to the Chinese. Make an economic argument, not a military argument.

You know what I would do On top of that, I would make Jensen Huang move to Taiwan. See how he feels about that. Like with the Chinese blockade, like let's have some, these, this selling chips to the Chinese is such a mistake. It is such an advantage we have. You are 100%. I love this prediction. Scott, you should be mayor of Los Angeles. That's what you should run.

I'd run on the In-N-Out ticket.

In-N-Out Burger ticket. Yeah, we could run. I think you're his top advisor and speechwriter. And I'm in. I'm in. Okay. Anyway, Scott, that is really smart. That is a really, you're absolutely right. That's exactly how they're gonna do it. And Trump has sold out a critical, critical part of our security. And calling David Sanger, by the way, can I just, just last thing, David Sanger, speaking of great New York Times reporters, is one of the top reporters in this area. Calling him a traitor is, is the one of the more, there's so many heinous things Trump says, but just, just absolutely Absolutely. As I always say, every accusation is a confession. He's the traitor. Anyway, we wanna 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. Thank you for listening to Pivot. Be sure to like and subscribe to our YouTube channel. We'll be back on Friday.

Today's show was produced by Lara Namens, Zoe Marcus, Taylor Griffin, and Todd Wiseman. Ernie Enertaut and Richard Thesleff episode. Thanks also to Drew Brose, Mia Severino, and Dan Shnoland. I'm Scott Guras, Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Make sure to follow Pivot on your favorite podcast platform. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Kara, I will see you on Thursday.