Transcript of GameStop's eBay Bid, AI and the Midterms, and Senate Prediction Market Ban

Support for this show comes from Ferragamo.

This Mother's Day, Ferragamo presents their Things I Have Learned From You collection, where the deepest forms of love and elegance are showcased because these lessons are not formally taught, but rather absorbed through small everyday gestures that define a lifetime. A celebration where style, confidence, and grace are naturally highlighted with everyday moments between a mother and her loved ones. Discover Ferragamo's Mother's Day gifting selection at ferragamo.com or in store.

Support for the show comes from Back Market. Everyone listening to this pod has heard or seen an ad telling you how much you need their latest tech. Let me let you in on a little secret: you don't need that upgrade. Companies often tell you that you need this version just to find out it basically does what the previous version can do. That's why Back Market, the world's leader in premium refurbished tech, is giving you another option. Back Market offers a range of high-quality tech inspected and refurbished by professionals. It's all they do. They have phones, computers, gaming consoles, vacuum cleaners, and even iPods. Plus, they're a company with a purpose, as refurbished tech is proven to have a significantly lower environmental impact than new stuff. Shop now at backmarket.com.

Support for this show comes from Harvey AI. The future of law is agentic, not just tools that assist, but AI agents that navigate complex matters.

That's why Harvey created agents that can do the work from end to end.

They build a plan, pull from the secure data sources, run subagents in parallel, and draft work product ready for your review, so you can delegate work and own the judgment. Trusted by more than 60% of the Am Law 100 and leading Fortune 500 legal teams, Harvey is an AI operating system designed specifically for legal work. Harvey, AI tailored for law. Learn more at harvey.ai.

Scott, stop making sense.

Please stop.

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 are you going to the Met Ball?

I was invited.

Why were you invited? I'm sorry to ask that question.

I acknowledge that that's personal.

I was in The Devil Wears Prada, which may I say, as I predicted, what happened?

Oh God, are we talking—

is this your interview about that film? $233 million globally. But why, tell me why you were invited to the Met Gala.

I'm still not sure. I just, I think it's because I've talked a lot about and got a lot of social media activity when I went to the Vanity Fair thing. So I think, fuck, I don't know. I think someone, I think some intern somewhere said, "Podcasting, what about that crazy professor?" I don't, I'm not sure a lot of—

They tried to be your pal, right? Weren't they trying to like, suck up to you for a minute and a half. I don't know.

People are pretty nice.

No, the Bezos people. Bezos and his lady friend.

Oh, I like them. I met them. I mean, I don't know them, but I've had, you've had more interaction with them than I have, but I find them to be lovely. I was invited, I think I told you this, I was invited to a small dinner with him and another friend and I said, no, I don't, A, I don't like Dinner's in two. I don't, you know, two, I don't like people. And three, I don't, I don't want to know these people because I know what's going to happen. We talk about the slot. I'm going to like them and I'm going to stop speaking my mind.

You like everybody. You have a truly low bar for people.

It is a pretty low bar. I'm pretty easy. I'm pretty easy to please.

They seem nice. I'm like, mm-mm-mm-mm-mm.

Yeah, no, I'm pretty, I'm pretty—

I think they're getting the shit kicked out of them. You know, there's protests and like billboards, very, some funny things. There was a, um, you know, like a shopping cart out front with a bunch of empty bottles and said bathroom. They're projecting things onto the buildings nearby. They kind of hijacked the whole thing. And it's kind of, I don't know, graspy and thirsty. I find them—

it's a perfect fit. Vogue. Vogue has so much rizz and no money. And the Bezos have just so much money and not a lot of rizz. It's a marriage made in heaven. I get the sense— I don't know this. But I get the sense Bezos is pretty self-actualized and honey badger don't give a shit. I think he's just living his best life, quite frankly. I don't know him.

Oh, I have a very different—

Oh, you might know more than me.

I don't. I think they're tone deaf to what's going on right now. Gas prices nearing $5. I think they're always coming off the hook.

Not tone deaf, they're unaffected.

Gas prices. Well, I get it, but I—

That's hilarious.

No, I don't mean that.

Oh no, honey, we need to cut back. No more second yacht.

They're not quiet wealth, let's just say. Apparently he's selling his yacht. He's selling his yacht. It's ridiculous.

Gossip. I think this is more about— anyways, I get the sense the guy— I mean, this is, this is the journey of all of them. All of them were like the, you know, captain of the chess club. They weren't getting laid a lot. They've worked their asses off. They're very smart. They're very talented. They've been working nonstop. And one day, the day of the IPO, they went into a conference room, this, you know, nice, fairly unattractive guy who had no sexual currency their whole life, and they come out and they're the sexiest man alive.

I know, I've had these discussions.

And they go ape shit. And I don't, you know, and with respect to Bezos, I get the sense, you know more about this than I do, I get the sense he's having a great time.

I don't know. I don't know. I just think there's leaders in our, I'm more for the quiet, if they're gonna be very wealthy, there is an argument to be made at this moment in time in it, which is that—

Keep it to yourself.

Keep it to yourself.

Agreed.

So I don't think— I think this doesn't play well. And I know they don't care, but they look like ridiculous— they look like Tom and Daisy. I'm sorry, I just— they just do in The Gatsby. And, and it's not a good look right now because things are really shifting. And I don't mean they have to pretend they're like Living on the Prairie with like one shovel and a, you know, and a bucket. Like, that's not what I'm talking about. It's just a I think the Mackenzie Scotts, the Lorraine Powell jobs, the Melinda Gates, you know, they speak out appropriately. They're not showing off. I just, I just, I don't think it's gonna end well. Anyway, we'll see. I'm coming to London, by the way. I'll be there tomorrow morning.

Yeah, I know you have some dinner, a big dinner.

And yes, you were invited. It's a small dinner and you will refuse to come, but that's okay.

Well, I was invited to the Met Ball. You think I said no to the Met Ball, but I'm coming to your dinner?

Yes, I do. Because who the fuck cares about the Met Ball? What would you wear to the Met Ball? Speaking of which.

You know, the idea— I get anxiety just thinking about it. That was such an easy no for me.

I would wrap myself in, like, oil and Glad Wrap.

Oh, God. Jesus Christ. I just ate.

What would you wear? Seriously, what would you— if you had to think of some fantastic costume?

I have— I literally have absolutely no idea. I don't.

You love to dress up. You dressed up as, like, at Halloween. You always dress up.

Oh, no, I love dressing up in something outrageous. I love going as a— as Deadpool or Starship Commander Jean-Luc Picard. Huge crowd pleaser.

Okay.

I went as Luke Skywalker.

But not like for a costume, Met Costume.

Any— I went as Ted Lasso. Any opportunity to put on a wig and be someone different, I absolutely love that. But to try and look good—

Well, you don't have to. Not all of them do. Sometimes they look kind of crazy.

That was the easiest no in the world. That's like the last thing. At some point, At some point I lose all academic credibility.

Yeah.

And, you know, something that gets much closer to that point is showing up the fucking Fed Ball.

I wish you would go and wear an "I don't care, do you?" shirt, like the Melania shirt.

I don't know. I don't like that either. I think if you get invited to something like that, you play along and you'd be a good gracious guest. You know, I don't think you wear a dress saying "tax the rich." I thought that was low budget.

I agree with you. I think that's stupid. You don't go, but you should go. Because I need to understand it. I need you to go in there 'cause I would never do such a thing.

I'm in London. And plus, I really wanna hang out with you and your friends here. Not true.

You are invited. Don't say I don't invite you. You are—

I literally have nothing to do. I'm home alone. I've got the boys asleep.

Come to dinner.

You're off partying with your fancy friends from The Devil Wears Prada.

No, it's not.

And I'm home alone with my dogs.

No, all right.

That's all I gotta say.

It's a small dinner. You're invited. If you'd like to come, it would be great. Okay? If not, I'm gonna find you and see your house in West Utah.

Yeah, come by. I'm shocked you're not staying here.

No, they have me at the hotel next to the thing, but I would usually, but when I come back, I will. Are you staying there now? What's the deal?

Uh, I don't know. I'm—

Oh, okay.

The honest answer is a monkey wrench has been thrown into our plans because—

You told me that.

My youngest, who has a habit of doing this, has—

likes where he is—

is all of a sudden getting A's. And anyways, I'm going to spend much more time in the US. A lot of moving parts here, but all right, I won't bother.

Let me know. Let me know. Anyway, I will come by and find you somehow. I'll break into your house. Um, anyway, let's get to the news. This is a weird one. As we record, GameStop and eBay stocks are responding to real train wreck of an interview from the GameStop CEO— what a surprise— Ryan Cohen, who's somewhat of a moron sometimes when he talks, announced the deal of the century over the weekend, a $55.5 billion unsolicited offer to buy eBay at $125 a share, pitching it as a future rival to Amazon. But then he went on CNBC's Squawk Box where our good friend Andrew Ross Sorkin, our famous Canadian friend, pointed out the math wasn't mathing. It was amazingly awkward. Let's listen.

You have $9 billion, uh, on your balance sheet. Arguably, if you're, if you're providing, uh, effectively all of your stock and then, and then the cash that gets you to 20, you have this letter from TD, that's another 20. Uh, we're now at 40, but we're still off, uh, by call it, uh, 16. And, and the 20, as far as I understand, while it's considered a highly confident letter, meaning TD saying they're highly confident that they would provide the financing. It's not locked financing.

Yeah, we'll see what happens.

I hear you. I understand that. I'm just trying to understand where the rest of the money would come from.

It's half cash, half stock.

I, I, I'm— I hear you. I'm just saying that that math doesn't get you to the, to the price that you're offering.

It got more and more awkward after that. Um, this is just— this is a meme stock stunt. This guy is such a moron. He's always trying to get that stupid stock up, the GameStop thing, and take advantage of people. So I don't know, reminds me of the, the story about Polly Market and Kelsey. Only the top whatever, 0.1% make money and everyone else loses. But your thoughts on this ridiculousness? This is, I love Andrew.

This is, well, first off, Andrew did a great job. I, I think Andrew is one of those, you're like this too. It is very difficult to ask really piercing hard questions to make people look stupid while remaining dignified and not coming across as an asshole. And Andrew's able to do that. You're able to do that. This is off off-off-Broadway theater, not strategy. This is just so fucking stupid and such a waste of oxygen. And a CEO who has, I looked into this, a compensation strategy that says if you can get GameStop to $100 billion, you get $35 billion in a Musk-like compensation strategy. So he's trying to memeify his stock again. So this is noise. It doesn't pass the most basic smell test. First off, there's a scale mismatch. eBay is a $30 to $40 billion enterprise. GameStop doesn't have the balance sheet to do that without massive dilution or leverage, and the stock they would have to offer, they'd have to issue so much stock that the stock would immediately go into a downward spiral.

Correct.

There's no way they can do this. The strategic fit is thin. We're both commerce, isn't a strategy. eBay is a two-sided marketplace with decades of liquidity and tens of millions of customers. GameStop is still figuring out what the fuck it wants to be other than trying to become a meme stock. And then As Andrew was pointing out, the financing reality here is nothing but a bad ayahuasca trip. Even a partial bid would require issuing a ton of equity, see above, massive decline in the stock. That's effectively asking shareholders to fund a ketamine trip. So what's left here? There's nothing here but signaling to retail investors. He's trying to say, we're bold, we're swinging, start taking, get someone on Reddit, get Roaring Kitty fired up so I can get, in irrational compensation for not actually adding any fucking intrinsic value to the market. What he said is we're a melting ice cube. And he's also, in my opinion, this has backfired. By the way, GameStop stock as we record down 9% today. This is not only, I blame the board here. A board of directors is supposed to be fiduciaries.

Is there one?

I mean, that's a fair point. But this should never have even been allowed. Real acquisitions, the real work is done behind the scenes. And if you're gonna make a hostile bid for a company, you show up with your financing locked and loaded. And it's done. And if you have to go hostile because they reject your initial offer, this should be a one-sentence response from the board of eBay.

Oh, come on.

You are not a serious people, period. That's it. Yeah. So this makes a headline. This is using financial markets and the press as you're taking them for clowns because you got a trip to the circus in COVID with your meme stock adventure. This is—

Well, he's trying to get it going again. It's like that Wall Street Journal piece about who's benefiting from these prediction markets. And if you don't know who the sucker in the room is, it's probably you. This is not a real thing. It is a— It was showing who makes profits, and it's a small group of people who make all the profits. Everyone else loses. Uses, thousands and thousands, whoever's using it. And so it's, you know, you're a sucker. There's just, it's just like, I don't know why this is legal, this kind of nonsense.

I just don't. Now it's down 10%. You're allowed to, I don't know if it should it be illegal. Here's the bottom line. The market, the market is doing its job. They say, oh, remember GameStop? Okay, the CEO's a fucking idiot and he has no, he clearly has no fiduciary oversight and it's taken his stock down 10%. Today, one day, right?

Except this has gone on for a long time, this nonsense, and people have benefited just like they are doing over on these predictions market. There, the certain people who have, who are a little smarter, you know, supposedly, like, I think Chamath was in there. Remember when it was going up and up and up, GameStop, right? It just feels like there's, they're just taking poor people's money. Like, it just is so grotesque that what they're doing here.

I think the meme stock movement I hated it. I got dragged on the internet 'cause I said young men should spend less time on their phone and trading with this was just stupid. I do think a lot, I'd be curious to know, I mean, quite frankly, the meme stock movement, the whole gestalt of it was stick it to the man, stick it to rich people.

Yeah, but it never, and then it became about a con. That's true.

Right, and when you have the Winklevii telling you to stick it to the man, it means you're about to be impaled as a retail investor.

Exactly.

And so I agree with you that anyone, this is just pure gambling, it's not speculation. And the reality is for younger people or people doing this, if you wanna have some fun, it's like Vegas, fine, have at it. But the thing is you gotta stare at your phone all fucking day 'cause the moves are so wild here. But this is, in my opinion, I think, and I don't know if there should be regulation here, it's free speech, but the question is should you be able to, Should you be able to have this kind of impact on the markets, which I don't think it has, when you make offers that are not in any way realistic? In other words, is this market manipulation? Is it trying to do something?

Right, that's what I mean, yeah.

With absolutely no serious intent of, I wonder what's happened to eBay stock price. God, that's a company that's—

Let's just thank Andrew, our favorite Canadian, Andrew Ross Sorkin, for like slapping this guy. He's really polite. I'd be like, at this point after he says half cash, half stock, I go, you fucking moron. That would be my next line. He's like, "The math doesn't work." I can't do it.

eBay stock's up 5%. That's really interesting.

Well, well, that, you know, that's been a long sort of troubled company, right? It seems like an opportunity for someone. Anyway, we'll see.

It's a great brand. Everybody knows it. Yeah.

I wrote one of the first stories about it. I remember meeting with the venture capitalists. They were at, what's that firm? Benchmark. It was all the handsome Benchmark men. It was me across from 6 tall white men.

Yeah. All very tall.

And they were telling me about eBay. And I know Pierre a little bit, who I like very much.

You found him. Yeah, he's a nice man.

Anyway, oh, it's had a rocky— it sort of missed a lot of turns. In any case, let's move on. The Supreme Court just temporarily blocked a lower court's ban on the abortion pill Mifepristone being sent through the mail. Two pharmaceutical companies had filed an emergency appeal warning the lower court's ruling could create chaos and leave patients around the country in limbo. Medication is now the method used in nearly two-thirds of abortions in the United States. The FDA approved the drug in 2000. Experts say it's safe and effective. We're going to be talking more about the midterms in a bit, but is this a fight that Trump and the Republicans want to have right now? As Melinda French Gates said on Threads, everyone deserves healthcare that's guided by science, not politics. Melinda, Melinda for the win. FTW. Thoughts?

Well, I'm just going to refer to it as an MTown. MTown. Is an enormous breakthrough. It's used by millions of patients worldwide. It's one of the most studied and safest medications on the market. Serious complications are very rare. The safety profile is comparable or safer than many common prescriptions. It's effective. It reduces the need for more invasive procedures. In all, it expands access, especially in underserved areas. It, you know, earlier care, safer outcomes. It's consistent with medical authority and standards. The legal consistency argument doesn't hold up here. Other medications with higher risk profiles remain legal. Singling this one is often just inconsistent.

Well, it's 'cause it's working. The anti-abortion activists, that's why they focus on it.

Again, this is what is so mendacious and un-American. Rich people don't need government. I have benefited enormously from standing on the shoulders of other people and taxpayers. Assisted lunch, University of California, rights, rule of law, the SEC, all these things I've benefited from. Now that I have wealth, I don't need the government. I have my own transportation, I have my own security, I have my own schools, I have my own healthcare. The people who need government the most are the most vulnerable among us. And just when the government needs to step in and protect a 15-year-old non-white woman in the South, from something that could impoverish her for her lifetime, traumatize her, put her in real serious health risk. That's who they go after. This isn't— I've even said the anti-abortion movement is not a war on women, it's a war on poor women. This is— who needs this? Who is this a breakthrough for? The people who don't have the resources, or quite frankly, the sophistication to get on a plane and go to a clinic to get an abortion in a state where it's legal.

Yeah. And then they sustain them when they're born, after they're born.

They can make this illegal. You and I would have no problem getting it. None. This is government at its worst. This is not protecting the people who need government and laws the most. This is, there is no medical, no moral, No, in my opinion, there are no reasons to do this. Well, they want no abortions.

You get why. They want no abortions whatsoever.

No, I get that. But when you— but here's the bottom line. They want abortions, but only on the down low for if and when it happens to one of their friends. What they— they're, you know, they're very like, you're not into abortion, then don't have an abortion. But I think you would find that one of the reasons that people are, a lot of people, especially wealthy anti-abortion people, have no empathy for this is they know if shit ever gets real for them or anyone in their family, they can figure it out. And so I find this, I find efforts to do away with, this drug is a gift.

Yeah, well, the Supreme Court has just temporarily though, this is just a temporary—

Well, my understanding is as we were speaking just a couple hours ago, they've temporarily halted the ban. Or block the ban. But this also goes—

But it's a temporary block.

This also goes back to, you know, what I think a lot about young men. And the number one reason, a lot of, I think it's most women who have terminated pregnancy go on to have children. One of the top reasons stated by women as to why they terminate a pregnancy is lack of partner support. And so if you're really serious about reducing the number of pregnancies terminated, Then we need economic policies and we need more men my age to get involved in young men's life and instill a set of values such that we produce more economically and emotionally viable men.

This is true, but they don't like them once they're born, Scott. They don't like them. They don't like these people once they're born.

No, well, that's a different issue. What I'm saying is— Well, I get that, but we're talking past each other right now. I'm talking about if you were serious about reducing the number of abortions, you would figure out a way such that there were women who felt they had more reliable partners. If you want more kids and you want fewer abortions, we need to produce a new generation of more responsible, economically viable young men. And you're right, once— the same people who are most rabidly anti-abortion tend to be the same ones who don't want universal childcare.

Or give them money, or they disdain them, or they're, you know, everything. It's just, it makes no sense. It makes no— and then they're the most for the death penalty. Penalty. And you're sort of like, where is the consistency here in any way?

Well, that joke— if you want to save someone from the death penalty, just shove them up a woman's uterus.

Oh my God, I can't believe I laughed at that. That's kind of funny. Um, anyway, let's look. I hope it's not— it's not just a temporary ban. I hope the Supreme Court, you know, gets slapped since they've had some very dicey and horrible rulings recently around the Voting Rights Act. But this is something that is just ridiculous. It's bad for companies, it's bad for people. Um, the abortion foes have won enough, I feel like, but they won't— they won't— they'll keep going. Um, okay, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, how AI is upending the midterms.

Support for the show comes from BetterHelp. May is Mental Health Awareness Month, a reminder that whatever you're going through, you don't have to go through it alone. There's a therapist out there who's equipped to help you through it. This Mental Health Awareness Month can be a great opportunity to check in with yourself and a great time to give therapy a try with BetterHelp. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform. They've served over 6 million people globally. They do the initial matching work so you can focus on your therapy goals. Just fill out a short questionnaire that identifies your needs and preferences. BetterHelp has more than 12 years of experience and industry-leading match fulfillment rate, which means they typically get it right the first time. But for whatever reason, if you want to switch therapists, you can do that at any time from their tailored recs. You don't have to be on this journey alone. Find support and have someone with you in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at betterhelp.com/pivot. That's betterhelp.com/pivot.

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 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 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.

Students.

You can get started at vanta.com/pivot. That's vanta.com/pivot. vanta.com/pivot. Support for this show comes from Delete.me. Delete.me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online 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 Delete.me their top 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 joindelete.me.com/pivot and use the 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 6 months to go until the midterms. AI regulation has become a hot button issue and the money is pouring in. AI super PACs are taking a page out of the crypto playbook, which worked rather well, spending millions to influence elections.

They're backing both Democratic and Republican candidates, uh, whoever is more friendly to AI and big tech. The biggest PAC, Leading the Future, is funded in part by Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI co-founder co-founder Greg Brockman. On the other end, there's the Public First Action, a PAC backed by $20 million donation from Anthropic, and tech billionaire Chris Larsen is putting up $3.5 million in New York to back Democratic congressional candidate Alex Borris, who supports AI regulation. This was— I was texting with Chris about this the other day, and also Alex. Let's take a look at the ad that Larsen's PAC just launched. Oscar, what is wrong?

You think you know what they're watching, but with AI, they can land on anything. Violence, child sexual abuse, and predators.

Who would be against AI safety laws?

OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. They're attacking Alex Boris for writing the toughest AI safety law in the country. Don't let OpenAI shut down child Child safety. You Can Push Back is responsible for the content of this advertising.

It's an interesting ad, and from a marketing perspective, it's an interesting way to counter child safety as the number one thing that people are all bipartisan about, and, and also AI increasingly. Um, and just for speaking of AI legislation, the Senate Judiciary Committee just advanced a bill that would require AI companies to implement age verification process. It would also ban minors from using AI chatbot companions. Um, I'm not sure this will will pass. And at the same time, the Senate just unanimously passed a ban on prediction market trading for senators and their staffers effective immediately. Smart. Kelshi and Polly Market both praised the Senate's move. The Senate Minority Leader Schumer called it a no-brainer, saying, "Must never allow Congress to turn into a casino." He urged the White House to follow suit. Of course, the White House has already warned staff about betting on the Iran war, but I doubt they'll go for a full ban. And again, the White House is probably in the way of any of this AI legis— even the safety stuff passing. Because they're in the pocket of the AI industry. So thoughts on this effort by Chris, who was— Chris was a tech billionaire at a company.

He's really interesting. He's been very involved in San Francisco politics, but this was interesting for him to sort of go against these pro-AI PACs, which are led by essentially Mark Andreessen and his gang, his mob. Thoughts on this?

Well, it's just, he's filling a vacuum. It feels as if there should be federal legislation. What I find most interesting is I think that the entity or the part, the touchstone or the visible object or the cudgel, whatever you want to call it, is going to be data centers. And what's interesting about AI is that your approval of AI, the two brands that have registered the greatest brand destruction have been the US abroad over the last few years, We used to be the enforcers protecting people of the West from rogue nations. Now we are that rogue nation. And, uh, AI, the brand AI has just taken an absolute nosedive because the only population or the cohort where that, where AI has over 50% approval is people making over $200,000 a year. Because if you're wealthy, you see AI as powering your 401(k), an opportunity to make money. You may use it at work. You feel pretty secure about your job. But what a lot of lower-income people think is that AI, the only visible representation of AI is a data center that's gonna send their electricity rates up while private companies that they don't even have access nor the money to participate in boom in value.

I think data centers are gonna be ground zero for this battle.

Yeah, it's one of them. I think a lot of it, I think people just have like a real antipathy towards AI at this point, even if it's, It's a good thing in some ways, right? I think they've really, you know, these PACs, they'll work day and night. Do the same thing with the crypto industry, you know, which had sort of a faint distasteful aroma to it. And it real, but it still was effective with all the millions they're spending all over. And by the way, Musk is part of this. They're all trying to stop it. It's interesting that Anthropic's on the other side or Chris Larsen's on the other side. So there's a lot of, of tech billionaires lining up to stop that. And it's not good for anyone. Alex Boris is a really interesting candidate. He's in that part of Manhattan. I think it's Jack Schlossberg, George Conway are all— there's a whole pack of people running in that area. And Alex is trying to sort of stick his head up as the Mr. AI regulator. But it'll be an interesting case of who wins here. A lot of people think the candidates or the party that is sort sort of vaguely anti-AI has a better chance in the midterms.

I don't know if you think that's so, but there is legislation. It's just that this administration is just not going to pass any of these laws because they're getting so much money from the AI companies. I don't see them— that's the only people they ever have at the White House are AI people. Never have a critic, never have anybody who's against it.

There was this great Hugh Grant, Nicole Kidman show called The Undoing where they're trying to solve a murder And the defense attorney says, "People hire me to create muck, and that's what's going on here." I think that's what the AI guys are going to do. I think they're just going to create a ton of confusion around this and make it difficult to pass anything. And also, they have the money. My understanding is they've already pledged about a quarter of a billion dollars. And just for reference, leading up into the '22 midterms, pharma spent—

'26.

No, this is— Using 2022 just as a benchmark.

Oh, oh, okay, got it, crypto.

But the pharma lobby spent $380 million, insurance spent $159 million, real estate spent $139 million. I think you're gonna see far more than that spent by the pro-AI lobby. I think it's gonna be sort of, they'll try to couch it as we're for safety and children, we need to do this thoughtfully. And the anti-AI will be a grassroots, and it'll be focused on data centers that are environmentally damaging to us they're not creating any jobs, and all they're going to do is send your already soaring energy costs even higher. So it's going to be, it's going to be an interesting, it's going to be an interesting proxy for how people feel about AI and technology.

I don't know. I feel like it goes back to the Bezos thing is they're trying. Nobody likes them anymore. Like they have become villains. They are villains now. And so no matter how much money they spend, People are like, I can't tell you how many people come— Scott, really interestingly, over the past week, people have come up to me and said thank you to you and I for being at least critical in a smart way. Like very, you know, not just screaming about it, but explaining it. I just feel like these are villains now, and they can spend as much money as they want, but I don't think it's gonna— I think people in their heart feel very nervous about it and very very distrustful. And I know it doesn't correlate with how much money, like, Prada was, but the story is about corporations fucking you, tech companies fucking you. That's really what it's about. And I think, and it was, it did it in a very subtle way. But it's, they've got, I'm not so sure it's going to work. And the same thing with these, the prediction markets, as much as they're interesting, everyone's got a little funny feeling about them.

I mean, obviously the Senate Nobody in the Senate should be on prediction markets if they have information.

Trading stocks.

Trading, well, both, you're right. The prediction markets is even worse on some level 'cause it's like, let's bet on the war, let's bet on death essentially. And it should be the White House, it should be the House, it should be all of them. It's not free speech. It's you have unique information, you're there for the public service, and while you're there, you're not gonna be gambling, essentially, which is what I think it is.

We, look, there's two issues here. One, and we'll come back to this, one is how the general public feels about AI and how the brand has eroded dramatically. And then there's, in my view, we should follow the Singapore model. An entry-level minister earns the equivalent of $800,000 and $1.7 million US for a prime minister. The objective of our elected representatives, the incentive should be you are there to make Americans wealthier, not to enrich yourself. And what Americans see right now around AI is the following. It's making a lot of people a lot of money, but the only thing I see is risk, peril according to these guys, and my electricity costs are gonna go up. So I'm supposed to like this? Oh, and by the way, the ultimate poster child for big tech, for tech in this age is Musk.

Yeah.

And he does not acquit himself well.

No, he does not.

So it used to be Gates, who was a little bit awkward. It used to be, and then went on to, I think get very concerned about public health in developing nations. Steve Jobs, at a minimum, was likable and seen as a visionary. The new spokespeople for tech are Musk, Altman, right? It's kind, I don't even think Bezos, he's kind of left, no?

Don't you think he's kind of left of stage? No, I think people think of him, mm-mm. I think he looks like, you know, Daddy Warbucks, except not nice to Annie.

And then unfortunately, or not fortunately or unfortunately, the other person at the center of this that's identifying or marking the age around technology because he was so close to so many of them is Epstein. So what do you have? You have increasing electricity costs, wealth accretion that you're not participating in, peril that supposedly the inventors of this shit think is everywhere. Oh, and let's add in a dash of pedophilia Welcome to Big Tech. Like, who are the heroes? Who are— I mean, maybe Dario Amadei. Who are the heroes here that are supposed to be—

Cuban. Dario.

Do you think Cuban's associated with technology?

I do. I do. I'm just saying. But I think he's not associating with it. I'm just saying there are better heroes here. Like, I would say Asahi Nadella could fill that role. Tim Cook could have, except now he looks like somewhat of a chode. Um, you know, I don't— I agree with you. I think I've never seen such a thing happen.

I mean, just 10% of Americans are more excited than concerned about AI as of March. Uh, two-thirds of Americans have not— have not much or no exposure to AI at work. Two-thirds of Americans think that AI will eliminate more jobs than it creates. Less than a third of Americans trust AI, and 77% of Americans think AI poses threat to humanity. So, okay, threat to humanity, but my electricity costs are going up.

Yeah.

So I'm totally—

So while I'm living here, before it kills us.

I can barely afford gas.

Yeah.

I don't have my Affordable Care subsidies, but OpenAI is raising money at $850 billion to fund something that supposedly is a threat to humanity. What do you know? People are excited about AI. They've done, This is the worst managed brand in a long time.

I don't know what they can do to get it back. I really don't at this point. We'll see if they can, but they're just all such— every time they open their mouths, I think they should stop talking. That's my feeling. Anyway, we need to go on a quick break and we come back. Apple is sitting on a ton of cash. Might they use it to make a big acquisition under their new CEO?

Support for the show comes from Back Market. Listen, there's a lot of ads out there telling you to buy new products. I'm at a point in my life where I'd say two-thirds of the things I buy, I think, do I really need this? I'd like to go somewhere, a silent retreat, and just live off a plate and a fork, but that has nothing to do with this ad. It's the same thing with tech ads, but Back Market gives you a smarter way to buy tech, bringing personal and home electronics back to life through professional refurbishment at a much lower price than new. It's all they do. Back Market offers a range of high-quality phones, computers, gaming consoles, vacuums, vacuum cleaners, and even iPods. All of the tech at Back Market has been inspected and restored by best-in-class professionals to ensure it is in perfect working condition. They offer a 1-year warranty and 30-day returns. And not only is Back Market refurbished tech more affordable than buying new, it's also more sustainable. E-waste is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world, and Back Market is on a mission to reduce the environmental toll of the fast-tech industry by making refurbished the smarter, more confident choice designed to use fewer raw materials, waste less, and emit less than new.

Find your next phone for less on backmarket.com.

Support for this show comes from Harvey AI. The future of law is agentic, not just tools that assist, but AI agents that navigate complex matters. Harvey was built on legal agents that analyze, draft, and execute with precision. But great lawyers don't just complete tasks, they strategize, That's why Harvey created agents that can do the work from end to end. They build a plan, pull from secure data sources, run subagents in parallel, and draft the work product ready for your review. So you can delegate the work and own the judgment. Harvey agents support work across fund formation, litigation, regulatory compliance, M&A, and more, adapting to the complexity of each matter and the way your team actually works. Trusted by more than used by 60% of the Am Law 100 and leading Fortune 500 legal teams. Harvey is the AI operating system designed specifically for legal work, helping teams move faster with greater precision and confidence. Harvey, AI tailored for law. Learn more at harvey.ai.

I'm Midge Purce, 2-time individual champion, championship MVP, and forward for the U.S. Women's National Team. Before I went pro, I graduated from Harvard with a degree in psychology, which comes in handy more than you think. Any athlete pursuing greatness knows there's a certain mentality you have to have. What people don't know is what that costs. In my podcast, Confessions of an Elite Athlete, I sit down with the best athletes in the world and explore the psychology, mindset, and unseen battles on the path to greatness. So take a seat. And learn from the confessions of an elite athlete on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

Scott, we're back. We have to talk about Apple's latest earnings and what they mean for the company's future strategy. They just had their best March quarter ever, beating expectations with a hundred $111 billion in revenue, up 17% from last year. iPhone is still the engine, $57 billion in sales, up 22%. And their services business, that's iCloud, Apple TV, and subscriptions, just hit an all-time record of nearly $31 billion. But the company also announced it's abandoning its net cash neutral target. Some analysts say this is a signal that Apple's about to make a major AI acquisition, possibly the AI startup Perplexity, which has struggled compared to the others, but, and have a range of issues around it. Should Apple buy into the AI business first? What do you think about this?

Well, first off, this really is sort of a run-through-the-tape, high-five, you know.

Nice last quarter for Tim Cook.

Yeah. Yeah. Best Q1 ever. Revenues of $111 billion, up 17% year on year, beating Wall Street estimates of $109 billion. The stock's trading up 3% after hours. They— one of the things I love about Apple is they've figured out we're a mature company. We're not a growth company. We're still growing, but we're going to return money to shareholders. And they do it through buybacks. They just announced a $100 billion share buyback. They've raised their dividend 4% to $0.27 per share. iPhone revenue rose 22% in the quarter with Cook calling the iPhone 17 lineup, which I wasn't a fan of, I gotta own that, the most popular in our history. Got that one wrong. Though revenue was constrained by supply issues, Q3 guidance revenue growth of 14 to 17% year on year. And the new CEO joined the earnings call and was introduced by Cook, which was the first time, I think, first appearance since the transition was announced. He praised Apple's financial discipline under Cook. And the thing I love or respect so much about Apple is that companies typically have a tough time acknowledging they're no longer a teenager and they stuff their face with Botox and fillers.

And they don't want to act like a mature company and be very disciplined, which goes to your question around AI. I personally think, and watch, by the time this airs, they'll announce they've acquired Perplexity. I think Apple's culture is so strong that they've decided that they are not an acquisitive company, that they don't like acquire. They've made fewer acquisitions than any company of their size. And I wonder—

The headphone company's the last one I remember.

Beats, right? It just wasn't that big a deal.

Yeah.

But in my view, what they've decided is similar to the search wars, let's return, let's not engage in the AI wars. It's too expensive, there's too much capital in it. Let's continue to be the arbiter, the toll, then custody of the billion most attractive consumers in the world.

Like with Maps, the way they got out of, sort of got out of Maps.

They get, and they manage, and granted there's been antitrust action against them, but they managed to get a $20 billion licensing fee to be the default search engine from Alphabet. I wonder if they're gonna say, look, we'll use AI to improve our targeting and improve our Apple Music, but we are going to at some point have an auction and auction off access as the default LLM, and they're gonna get tens of billions of dollars from one of these guys.

Or should they buy something and just, 'cause this is sort of the heart, whatever you think of AI, it is at the heart of your services. And you can't just like, it's not, you can't vendor it like you would search or, or mapping.

Search has been pretty central.

Yes, but it's not that, there's a whole bunch of things you do on an iPhone that's not just searching. And you don't use search internally on the phone. You use it when you go outside. That's what they use Google for, for your browser. They don't do it, they don't power the search inside of Apple. They have to have an AI company. They just do. They need it to integrate the way Google has done with Gemini.

They need one.

I think they have to buy one. Because they're not gonna be able to build it. They keep having people leave who running AI. It's just, there's not enough action happening there for people to stay. There's more action.

So you think it'll be an acqui-hire? Do you think they'll actually offer it as a service?

No, I think it'll be integrated into their services. It'll, the way Gemini is. I mean, there is a Gemini separate service, but most, most of the usage of Gemini is within the search engine, right? Into their current products. I don't think people necessarily, like, I go out when I wanna use AI and go to Claude, right? And sometimes I get it in Gemini, but Gemini's not quite specific enough and I don't wanna pay for it and I don't want more relationship with Google and probably one of, and Claude is better for me at least. So I think they have to have something they integrate into their business for lots of reasons. And then they could also say, if you wanna, do something outside, like with search. We have a deal with OpenAI. I think they did have some sort of deal. Anyway, I think they, they buy something. I don't see how they can't.

But to be serious in AI involves this, this CapEx. You see, Apple's complexion and shareholders is— Apple shareholders have gotten their lips wrapped around the crack cocaine of profits.

I'm not talking about a customer service, a consumer service. I'm talking about integrated into their other services. They need to have some ability to do that.

But why, I guess my question is the following. Anthropic and OpenAI both get public. One, you know, both of them call it a trillion dollars. The new CEO shows up and says, who wants to be the default AI for Apple products?

Yes, but for Apple products externally, not internally. They need to have AI.

Oh, they need, I agree, they need to have AI competence.

And that's why they need to buy something like Perplexity now.

Because you don't think they can recruit the people to build that.

I can't. They have lost people. And you go, I don't pay attention to every turn of the screw with all these AI people moving around, which they do like a lot, but they've lost quite a few people running. It's just not, it's not where the action is. And so they're gonna go. And so they have to have a competence by having a, like a Perplexity to run the internal stuff that you don't see necessarily. And then, for a consumer service, just like with search. There's search in Apple that's not Google, but then they go and get it for the external stuff for customers where it's like, why should we pay for a really robust search service? It just doesn't make sense. Why should we pay for a map? I mean, they still have Maps. That's not true, but mostly it's Google Maps, right? They, that's who they get a big chunk of money from. And that's who their default is or default browser. Here we have, you know, the Google browser essentially. And so that kind of stuff, it's like, why bother doing that? This is integral to their how they get you songs, how they get you— they can't have OpenAI give you song information.

It just doesn't make— they need to do it themselves, certain things. That's my feeling.

Yeah, I find the product— I haven't, you know, I pull up— I'm now running and doing more zone 2 exercise, but—

Good.

Yeah, I know. Thank you. And then, but I do, when I bring up Spotify, they have that AI DJ. AI. I'm trying to think. You think that Apple needs AI. How would that manifest in the customer, consumer experience?

You don't see it. You know, just the way when you go to search right now with Gemini, it's there, right? It says, this is the Gemini. You don't even have to tell me. It's just search. Like, I don't know why they have to differentiate.

When I'm on an Apple phone though, I use Google search.

Right. But internally, as they serve up all manner of things to you, they're using Apple technology. They just need to own They need to have a basic level of competence in AI to serve much of their stuff. And then the external stuff, they can get piles of money from whatever company. I bet it'll be Claude. That's my guess. But they need to own something. So if only to maintain those relationships, right? To under— I just don't think they can be without AI expertise, but they don't need to offer consumer service. They're never gonna offer consumer service. Not their strength anyway. Their strength is their ecosystem. Anyway, we need to move on, but the Pentagon just made a slew of AI deals. Speaking of, this is an AI week here. Jeff Bezos's Tuxedo and AI dudes announcing last week that it reached agreements with Amazon, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Oracle, and a startup called Reflection to use their technology for, quote, "lawful operational use." I don't trust them at all. These companies join XAI, OpenAI, and Google in providing Pentagon with AI tools. The Pentagon says these agreements will accelerate transformation toward making the US military an AI-first first fighting force.

Notably, Anthropic is still out of the mix despite that recent productive meeting at the White House just last week. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei an ideological lunatic. He's such a moron. You know, they should spread around the wealth here, but, and not just rely on one company, obviously, and let them fight it out. But I think nonetheless, from what I understand from everyone who works in government, Claude remains the the top player here. And it's stupidity on the— well, it's kind of saying things twice. Stupidity on the behalf of Pete Hegseth. You have to assume he's smart in the first place, which he isn't. I think he's gonna be out. I have this feeling he's gonna be out.

You think?

I do. I don't know why. I just was like, "Oh, he's gonna get rid of him." He's too much of a moron. He's such a— I know he looks the part and he does his chest puffy thing for Donald Trump, which he likes. But I just think he's— I think the knives are out for this guy because he's such an— I just can't figure out which one they're gonna get first, Patel or And by the way, SNL did a great job on both of them this week.

Oh my God.

Aziz and Zariya did Patel. And of course, Colin Jost, as P-Deck says, is just fantastic. But I think he's a moron. And it's fine to have all these people come in and do this stuff. Sure, why not? It just seems like that's a lot of people in there in that room. I don't think it's— I feel like somehow it's probably too chaotic to have all of them there on some level. Maybe not.

It just seems to me that to a certain extent, Anthropic can declare victory and go home and be one of the 7 companies or not. The Department of Defense, they blacklisted Anthropic. Anthropic feels like, and Dario Amodei feels like kind of the first person who sort of said no to the tech bros and to Hagseth and Trump, and he's gained, I think, a lot of stature from that. But at the same time, he can, you know, he can say that, "Fine, I'll be one of the 7 companies." The breakdown wasn't over capabilities, it was over guardrails, right? The DOD wanted cloud deployable for all lawful purposes.

Right, which they didn't. Yes, I agree. Yes.

And Anthropic said no to autonomous kill decisions. And so a federal judge said the Pentagon's move looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic, which is an— it's just so weird. All these tech bros who are all looking for the next check and bailout in, their own crypto scheme, going after Dario. I think it's— I think Dario's in a great spot right now for the next era.

Oh wow.

Yeah, he looks really solid.

Next, if there's a Democratic president, he's going to be the poster child for the—

the most interesting argument I've heard, and it really made me think about this, was that all of these guys are claiming that this is more powerful than nuclear weapons. We don't have private venture-backed companies making nuclear bombs.

Correct, sir.

So it's like, okay, if you really believe that, Then shouldn't you all, by virtue of defense, for defense reasons, be government-controlled and owned companies?

Yes. Yes, yes.

Or highly regulated? Because you're claiming that these things are more powerful than any technology ever. We don't—

Scott, stop making sense.

Please stop. Well, it's just so, it feels to me like they're setting themselves up. I'm really excited about the potential for a Democratic administration because I think there's gonna be a lot of momentum around "Alright, here are some basic common sense regulations we would apply to any technology that is a quarter of what you claim the peril is here. You're the ones saying it's going to take employment over 20%. By the way, the French Revolution and the Weimar Republic descending into darkness happened when they hit 20% unemployment. You're claiming this thing, you're claiming this thing is learning so fast that it'll be able to turn on itself. Well, okay. Shouldn't that mean you are not allowed to release anything to the broader public until we have given you the badge of clearance on it? That's just gonna— I think it's just gonna be so easy for somebody to kind of step in and say, all right, you guys win. You have scared us so squarely and so rightly that we are going to— we are going to have regulators and the Defense Department and the DOJ in your fucking knitting, folks. And at the same time, they need to strike a balance such that Chinese LLMs don't get well ahead of us.

But at some point you have to realize, okay, when does the wellbeing of civilization begin to even remotely rival the excitement of your IPO? It's just the tech bros have become so used to, as long as I'm gonna get my face on the NASDAQ billboard, I can overrun all social concerns and I can even brag about how fucking dangerous this is as long as I use it to extract or pull the future forward with cheap capital. I think these guys are really sticking their chin out.

They're sticking, and then they have, you know, again, Emil Michael is there, their best buddy, who is from there, you know, gaming the situation because the moron, Pete Hegseth, doesn't know anything. And so they're just, they're sitting. Let me say, And if the Democrats do get control in a strong way, you need to flush all these people down the toilet like immediately. Like not even like, let's all try to get along. First you take them out and then you start over again. And I think puts Dario in the best position in that regard because he had the guts to speak back, you know, or at least push back on just the most illogical, moronic statements by the Defense Department under this incredibly unqualified cabinet secretary. I mean, really, it's so ridiculous. Ridiculous. One of the problems, you know, sometimes there's nefarious people who are smart, right? And you're sort of like, oh, we're in trouble. But this is a moron, like an actual— like, the moronic nature of both Kash Patel and Pete Hegseth is so apparent. They're not sly. They're not, you know, slyly evil or evilly sly or whatever.

And I think Cheney is shaking his head.

Correct. I was like, uh-oh, because he knows, right? He could do something. Um, but I just, I, you're right. Uh, Dario puts himself in a much better position for what's next if we make it there. Anyway, one more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails.

This week on Net Worth and Chill, I'm joined by Tank Sinatra, the meme king with over 15 million followers across Tank's Good News, Influencers in the Wild, and his personal account. Tank is breaking down what the meme economy really is. Is, how much a single sponsored post pays, why major brands are throwing serious money at jokes, and how meme culture—think Preparation H, starter packs, and a perfectly timed screenshot—is actually reshaping how we think about money and value. Get ready for a conversation that'll change the way you scroll, make you rethink what going viral is really worth, and prove that sometimes the most serious money moves are wrapped in the silliest of jokes. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on youtube.com/yourrichbff.

Okay, Scott, wins and fails. Why don't you go first this week?

Well, my fail is the board of directors for GameStop. If you're gonna be an SEC publicly listed company, you have a fiduciary responsibility to not, to not impose a tremendous burden on other companies who are trying to serve their shareholders and serve their consumers and their employees. And when you make these ridiculous offers to another company that has absolutely no credibility, veracity, likelihood of going through, you're just in some weird attempt to like ignite another meme craze in your stock. That's just irresponsible and reckless. And there needs to be, generally speaking, in business within, from public companies to other public companies, there is sort of a code. You don't— like when we were thinking about acquiring a company, a public company, and then we decided internally it doesn't make sense, we immediately sent them a letter saying we're withdrawing consideration because we don't want to tie them up. We want them to get on with their business and their life, even though you could do it to distract them. But I was on the I was on the board of Urban Outfitters, and at one point we were considering acquiring Abercrombie Fitch, who at the time was hugely diminished.

Wow. Oh, by the way, Kara, we missed that one. We could have picked it up for pennies. Pennies. And it's come back hugely. Oh, has it? Oh my gosh. Abercrombie, that would have been, that one got away from us. We came very close. The Haney family that runs and controls Urban Outfitters are very, very smart people. And, and, but ultimately we passed. But the moment it was like, the moment we made the decision, we could have gotten in the way of other competitors, American Eagle or whatever, to acquire it, kept it on the market for longer. But it was like, no, there's a code amongst good fiduciaries where you immediately say, we're not going to be a bidder here, such that they can get on with trying to sell it to somebody else. And this is such, it's just irresponsible. I just, I just hate this from like a decorum standpoint. It's a waste of everyone's time. He's not And I love the fact that the market has responded by taking the stock down 11%. Anyways, it's kind of weird for me.

Yeah, I think Ryan Cohen's an ass clown.

I mean— My win is Senator and university president Ben Sasse. Did you see his 60 Minutes interview? Oh God. Oh, it's heartbreaking. I, it really, and of course I turn everything back to me. I find he is such a, like he's the best, of conservative values. You know, his ability to talk about his faith, God, his fidelity to the Constitution, his fidelity to his family, and couch it as he struggles with pancreatic cancer, it's so eloquent and so moving. And I was struggling with something that happened to me that really upset me this weekend. And he— I watched his interview and he talked about that at one point before it was— he had the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, he had, he said, hundreds of tumors around his spine, unbeknownst to him. And he was in such intense crippling pain that he was taking a dozen scalding hot showers a day that would provide him just minutes of relief, and then he'd have to take another hot shower. And so I started a practice where I'm like, "Okay, imagine you have that kind of pain, tumors all over your spine, and all you can do is lay down and then take another scalding hot shower." I'm like, "What would this problem mean to me at that point?" And it's a really healthy practice.

Anyways, I have my Ben Sass tumor practice now. Oh, goodness, yeah. And he's—

Can I point out there's a lot of really amazing mRNA technology happening right now about pancreatic cancer. Pancreatitis.

Well, he's still alive because of some of those technologies.

Yeah, but it's still— it's probably too late. But there's so much going on. Of course, this administration's been cutting all these things, but he's amazing. He was one of the first people to go against Trump too when it wasn't convenient.

He also had a really lovely statement when they were talking about the worst thing about his illness. He stated that he was really sad that he wasn't going to be with his wife for a while. I mean, it was just so— such a lovely testament to his his wife and the way he framed it, that he believes they'll be together again, but he's upset that he's gonna have to wait. I mean, this guy, Democrats should— a sigh of relief that he is not running for president on the Republican side.

Well, except the Republicans rejected him because he was an early Trump opponent and then he got sort of—

Oh, I think he could have carved out a big lane. I don't know.

He got drummed out. He was one of the people like Liz Cheney. And so he was in that gang that got got shoved out of the whole party because they needed to be in, you know, the Trump hallelujah choir. So I always found him to have a lot of courage even before this.

I reached out to him, him, his people over the weekend. He's going to come on the Pop Trip pod. But anyways, my win is just the perspective. And I think I would recommend that everyone watch that interview. It really does remind most of us. It's like that monk saying that the man with good health has 1,000 problems, the man with bad health has one problem. When you hear what this guy's going through and you hear how just articulate he is about government and his views on things, I really found it, I thought, God, this guy's such a great role model. I really hope he's around for, I love that he's getting attention now, but I think he's adding a lot of really wonderful value to the public discourse right now anyways. My win is Senator and university president. That's nice. Good win.

Excellent win. All right. Okay. And your fail is this board. Okay. So my fail, well, it's kind of a win in some ways, but the New York Times interview with Tucker Carlson, he's done a lot of interviews lately 'cause he's trying out all his stylings to run for president, as you noted. 100%. He's trying everything.

It's fascinating to watch him do. The interviewer did a great job.

Yes. Lulu Garcia-Navarro, who's a friend of mine, Did a great job pressing him back. He denied wondering whether Trump is the Antichrist. Lulu played it. Played the video. And then he denied it again. He denied it right after. "Oh, it didn't come outta my mouth." She's like, "It just came outta your mouth." He goes, "I never said that." Yeah, right. It was, I was like, wow.

Funny. This guy looks like you saying that. Wow.

This isn't you? You know, she did a great job with him, but it was just, I think the more interesting thing is you should watch all of them 'cause he's preparing for a presidential run. And so his tricks and everything else are, she's super smart. You may not know that. I don't like Tucker Carlson, but he's highly intelligent. And I think he's an interesting— It'll be an interesting fight over the Republican Party post-Trump. And obviously Marjorie Taylor Greene is trying to prepare her way. She changed Trump Derangement Syndrome into Trump Disappointment Syndrome, which I think is probably more accurate for his followers. Anyway, just a really good interview. Watch it. Lulu's an amazing interviewer at the Times. But that exchange The whole thing is quite good, but that exchange back and forth is really, was really something. Obviously, my win is the money that Devil Wears Prada did. It's crazy. Sorry. You just did yours. You just did the same one of yours, the GameStop. That is a lot of money. I also, it's really interesting what's doing really well. The Michael biopic did really well. Michael Jackson biopic is doing incredibly well. Again, it was really, here's why.

That's why I think it's a win because Hollywood always says, "Oh, that's a Black movie," or, "That's a woman's movie," or, "That's a gay man and women's movie, and that's why it's doing well." It's just, they're both, I haven't seen the Michael movie, and I think they left out some of the pertinent parts of controversies around him in this one.

Michael Jackson?

What controversy? Yeah, exactly. Or let's bring in a white guy, Project Hail Mary. They're just good movies. Like, stop having to like say, "Ah, it's the women. Ah, it's this." Like, you just make a real, What I loved about this movie and some of the others that have been doing really well is they show Hollywood at their very best. Beautifully told stories. There's not a— in any of these, there's not a stitch of fucking AI anywhere, right? It doesn't feel cooked. And that's what really is working. People are just flocking to these movies. And by the way, the theater was full of not women, it was everybody. It was really interesting. It was young men. It was not— I was surprised by the audience because you get to thinking it's a bunch of ladies going out and having fun. Having margaritas, frozen margaritas with their friends and then kicking it up in their heels. But it wasn't. That was you. That was you, Scott. So I just, I really like—

I'm gonna start hanging out at movie theaters.

Yeah, I know. Non-AI movies. I don't know what else to say. It's a push. Just like people don't like brand AI, they like brand people. And that's what's done very good. They love stories. Anyway.

Oh, I got a show recommendation for you. What? What? Shorzy. Shorzy? It's about this hockey team that's sort of the pride and joy of some small town in Canada. It's really, and of course it's all about, it's really a story about people, but it's really adorable and well done. Oh, and Cara, you'll love this. Shorzy is directed by the same guy who directed Heated Rivalry, Jacob Tierney. So there's got to be blowjobs in the locker room coming coming episode too. I was watching Running Point.

I think that's what it's called. The one with Kate Hudson, and Justin's in it too. Justin's in it a lot in this movie.

Yeah, he's very good in that too.

It's good. It's adorable. I just finished watching it. Okay, Shorzy. All right. I'll listen to it. Anyway, we want to hear from you. Send us your questions about business, tech, or whatever's on your mind. Go to ny mag.com/pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT. And elsewhere in the Karen Scott universe, you're going to love this, Scott. For the latest episode of On, I interviewed Aline Brosh McKenna and David Frankel, the writer and director of Devil Wears Prada 2. I wanted to focus focus on them. I mean, the stars have gotten a lot of attention, but I think these two are at the heart of why it's so excellent. And they're really incredibly good purveyors of what they do. Let's listen to a clip of David explaining how he approached Meryl Streep's character, Miranda Priestly.

Miranda is not the villain here. Miranda is the heroine. Miranda is trying to achieve excellence every day. And the— Why does she have to be nice to accomplish that? You know, and there's a long list of mostly men, of course, course, who are highly regarded for their superb work. I mean, they might be the GOATs in their business, but they— and no one really questions how nice they are about accomplishing that.

It's a really smart interview. I really like to show people behind the scenes. I think they're great. And Scott, one of the parts you'll like a lot is Miranda trying desperately to avoid trying to avoid getting in trouble with HR the whole time. It reminded me of you. I don't know why. Trying to avoid HR? Yes. There's, you know, she says things and her assistant goes, "No, no." And she's like, "What? I can't say I want to kill myself?" You know, there's a whole— it goes, it's a little bit, but it works really well. And like every time she did it, when I saw it the second time, I thought, "Oh, Scott Galloway needs someone who sits next to him and goes—" But then I realized that was me. No, no, no, no, no.

I think you give me— You realize I have never been in anything resembling any type of trouble like that at a corporation? I'm Alan Alda alert!

I know, I know, I know, I know, I know. Anyway, it was good. Anyways, David Frankel and although I do call my assistant Jiggles. Is that wrong? Oh God. There we go. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We don't do that. We don't say that.

At the Christmas party, I ask all the hot women to sit on my lap. Is that right? What do you want for Christmas, little girl?

Oh my God. All right. That's the show. Thanks for listening to Pivot, and be sure to like and subscribe to our YouTube channel. We'll be back on Friday.

Today's show was produced by Lara Neiman, Zoe Marcus, Taylor Griffin, Todd Weissman, and Christine Driscoll. Ernie Endertod engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Broseman, Severo Danchelon, and Kate Gallagher. Nishat Kurwaz, Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Make sure to follow Pivot on your favorite podcast platform. Thank you for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com/pod. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business.

Support for this show comes from Harvey AI. The future of law is agentic, not just tools that assist, but AI agents that navigate complex matters. That's why Harvey created agents that can do the work from end to end. End. They build a plan, pull from the secure data sources, run subagents in parallel, and draft work product ready for your review. So you can delegate work and own the judgment. Trusted by more than 60% of the Am Law 100 and leading Fortune 500 legal teams, Harvie is an AI operating system designed specifically for legal work. Harvie, AI tailored for law. Learn more at harvie.ai.