Question is of the quality of the speaker. But just the frequency of interactions. No, it's a it's a it's an observance bias. You can always find the alien who's a great speaker. Yeah, cuz they're more visible. Yeah, that's that's that's my about this. I don't think that's what I was saying. So I think it's the one of the reasons why someone would believe that would be sampling bias.
Yes, a sampling bias.
But it also controls tradition in any power law distribution. You have a sampling bias towards the largest population having the wind was thinking more like for example in Europe assume that say Sweden or some random country and assume that they have more well-oiled bureaucracy or the society is a little bit more how to say systemic where you don't have to every time, you know how to interact with people to get stuff done.
Something like that. I was trying to think of an example which science is not visible to you. I mean to the swedes are probably just as talkative to each other but because they don't speak English natively or that's not their only main language. They're not eloquent or fluent in English as much they don't stand out in the global stages might so you just not going to see that.
Yeah, that's true. I wonder if that is any data and not exactly this but related data look at the the internet being the internet converging on English is a huge gift to Indians right you combine that with remote work in India is probably best situated to take advantage of remote work plus Internet more so than anybody else enough, for example, you know, like if you look at how cold it spread then, you know the frequency of interaction in terms of how
We don't have any disease that spreads by talking but she has to be all covid I would argue is more disease in the mind than anything else. Look at how it's driven people insane about lockdowns versus masks versus vaccines. It's as much a mental virus if social media did not exist covid-19 have been a thing in the sense that yes, people will still got infected people will still died, but we wouldn't have shut down businesses and the economy over it by the time we figured out what was going on would be over.
Hmm, I drove it is at least as much a mental virus as it is a physical virus. I'm not denying that some physical virus. It is absolutely a physical virus, but the way it has affected Our Lives is as much a physical and story is as much a mental phenomenon as it is a physical phenomenon. Yeah, I would agree with you that I think the approach of one-size-fit-all if it's all the same kind of lockdown everybody trying was not needed but I think it was it was a good starting point if I had to guess, you know,
If it's not debating that I'm not debating the Merit of lockdowns, I think that's that's too complicated for social media. I mean we used to stay
for a long time. So yeah, we agree with you there.
No, no. Yeah, I'm not debating the merits of logged on but it's an outcome of the mental aspect that you spoke about. That's what I said. So do you think there is a portion that's like, Mass Hysteria?
There's a part that's performative, you know the idea that people who are vaccinated still have to mask up its kind of performative the you know, the Leaky lockdowns at the Western countries employed that were largely ineffective where theatrical people get arrested on the beach or ticket on the beach or sort of silly. Right? So there's a lot of crazy stuff we've done that's ineffective. But this is how governments our governments are large monolithic entities. They don't have the ability to do Nuance. Right a public servant issuing tickets can interpret new on
Because if they did then you can't leave it up to up to their vagrancies or their friends would get off the hook and their enemies would get punished. So these are incredibly blunt instruments. The ideal lockdown is that lockdown of one where each individual decides for themselves their own risk profile and decides whether or not to lock down now because with covid we collected view system, we started imposing, you know, non-local lockdowns and started going with national level lockdowns or state level lockdown at least in the u.s. It was done mostly at the state level the ideal would
I've been just do the local level like in your neighborhood you decide if you're locked out or not, but then that requires a level of internal borders that we were not willing to enforce. So the countries that managed to successfully lockdown. I think you pointed out earlier the content the example of New Zealand. Yeah, they're an island easy borders, right China, they enforce internal borders. So the ideal lockdown would probably have been each neighborhood locks down and then in forces internal borders, so external borders against the surrounding neighborhoods and in each neighborhood can make
Decision like a highly rural neighborhood or one with good weather where people spend most of their time Outdoors wouldn't have needed any lockdowns. Where's one that was highly Urban could have been forced to lock down an attempt to suppress disease locally, but it would have had to enforce borders without the border control lockdowns. Don't make any sense because it's like being in a swimming pool, right? It's like having a that's like having a pink section on teen section swimming pool. It doesn't work. Yeah, that's a great thing. And of course what? Yeah, then what of course once it got past a certain level of break out that it was impossible to contain test.
Trace isolate only works in when a small percent of the population has it but once a large enough population has it it's done. But at this point covid is done. I'm you look at the stats. It's crashed down to near zero then a combination of vaccination herd immunity and just the arrival of Summer weather ultraviolet radiation longer days of people being outdoors has essentially snuffing it out of existence but like everything else with a government, you know, it took them three months too long to react and we'll take them three months too long to undo it and they'll never
Undo the lock Downs fully right? They'll continue having some equivalent of a residue like we had with the TSA post 9/11 that will kind of Annoy Us for the rest of our lives. Yeah, I think also the libertarian attitude of United States. It would have been also more effective if you allow local at the local level to decide if to have a lockdown or not.
So yeah, but that clashed with this idea of open borders where you can enforce internal borders in the u.s. Constitutionally speaking because I think this kind of thing just wasn't imagined right it sort of unprecedented.
Yeah, I mean in Europe that thinking of introducing kind of like a vaccination card kind of system and now to me it sounds like the start of a slippery slope would love to get your thoughts on the bottom that
well by the time they roll that little piece of bureaucracy out. It'll be gone. I don't think covid Wing there might be a new covid, you know, the things that we should be investigating our hey, where did this virus come from? Like how come we can't send a team into Wuhan to actually check out the lab where it might have leaked.
Because Stars One Victor of lands by accident multiple times the Spanish Flu really kicked out of the lab in the 1950s. So lab leaks are actually quite common. Not not saying it was fabricating a lab that's completely different hypothesis and has a much higher bar for evidence. But the idea that this might be one of the eight different viruses that they had sequence and we're keeping in the Wuhan lab. This might have leaked out that's worth investigating but we're not going to investigate that so what happens when the next one next one next one comes so
we don't you know, so I think those are the kinds of things that we should be figuring out how to make sure this doesn't happen again, you know, the moderna vaccine was ready to days after the sequence of the virus in the US I think was like January something or the other if we have to deal with this again, why can't we do human challenge trials? And what can we do a simpler packaging of vaccine to get the vaccine to market the you know, we've run vaccine experiments now in different states where some of done by age and song done first come first serve some try to separate by population characteristics.
Why can't we just objectively look at those? I mean, I know the answer the answer to this is because everything is politics down everything is politics. So politics destroys the idea of doing objective science or data anymore. So now if you want a lockdown policy or a vaccine policy that makes sense to you. You literally have to move jurisdictions to get
it.
Girlfriend naked eye.
No, but that's how to
say it comes with the territory. Right? I mean the the phone the point is we can't sit here wishing for a better Society all of a sudden those are the constraints and we have to work within that and the bureaucracy for example, there are countries or societies which have more complex data accuracy u.s. Is not one of them right so we should probably think of a method
Such that the bureaucracy process is something quickly.
Which would be more practical than expecting zero Bianca see? Yeah, I think counting on the government to save you in anything is sort of silly. Right? Like they can't take care of your health the US Food Pyramid the FDA Food Pyramid has literally been upside down for the last 50 years, but no one calls him to call them out on it, you know greens and simple carbs are at the top still and the whole thing is complete nonsense. Everyone gets an SSRI Purdue prescription most of the
Heroin addicts are actually taking the so-called legal prescription drugs. If you follow the government unlike how to get a job or what to go to school for your probably screwed and wealth creation. So the government is there as a safety net as the lowest common denominator is a catch-all. It should be there as a safety net and the lowest common denominator for the people who would otherwise slip through the cracks that's their job, but when they try and tell everyone what to do, they sort of destroy productive Civil Society the process
So I think the role of government should be to save the people who are into desperate or unfortunate of a situation to save themselves, but to leave the productive members of society alone, so they can create innovate and sort of pull the rest of society forward when you try to make one-size-fits-all treating everybody as a cog in a machine. That's when you get societal collapse mean right now. We're basically surviving on inflated money. We basically took 10 or 20 years worth of wealth that the future generation should have had and we're squatting
Bring it in one or two years because of our Bungalow covid response and our kids that we paying for it for a long time through unnecessary inflation and through the kind of upward collapse of housing prices and and by keeping all these zombie businesses afloat that basically need to go out of business. We we may also end up losing the dollars Reserve currency status in the next decade because the debacle of the last few years, we've also given the green light to politicians to print money non-stop, which is going to have ruinous consequences. So these are not consequence free.
Actions when the government tries to solve problems for everybody they end up being the biggest problem. Look I was just as scared as anyone when covid started because at the time we didn't know if the infection fatality rate of the case fatality rate was half a percent 1% 2% 3% 5% 10% They were images of videos of people dropping dead in the streets in China. It was really scary stuff. But once it became clear that the CFR was actually quite a bit lower and that this was a very nonlinear disease that hit older and kind of people with
Morbidities much harder, the rest of us should have been unlocked to go about our business, especially Outdoors Banning outdoor dining Banning outdoor walking Banning Park spending beaches. All the stuff is complete nonsense utter nonsense and the people who advocated that should be ashamed of themselves, but we're not going to hold them accountable instead. What we did was we normalize the printing of huge amounts of money locking people in their homes and ushering in socialism by essentially Banning capitalism this self-fulfilling spiral to the bottom and there are gonna be consequences.
This is for it. I hope that their consequence in the people who advocated these terrible policies, even after the evidence was clear that they weren't working. This should not be utilized. This should not be blanket applied to the entire population, but I doubt we'll see that level of accountability because unfortunately turns out you guys this a common sense is uncommon and people are now so highly politicized that they essentially just vote for their red or blue party regardless of the facts. We may have lost the ability to do error correction because through identity politics people now,
Identify as to how they should vote as opposed to vote on the merits. There are very few centers left very few swing votes left. I hope there's enough to kind of punish or what these hold accountable people who made bad decisions and see now I agree everything you said except for two things one is that you mentioned that the government is there to protect the lowest common denominator. I think I'll go further and I'll say that not not only they have relegated that.
Their whole job is to protect themselves
and with the two-party
system. It is even worse because think of it one is King. The other one is King's advisor and then you rotate them based on who comes there. None of this parties like you mentioned, right? They've been printing money not like if you think about Republicans are considered, you know are you know financially, you know conservatives. No, they're not neither is you know, the left so both
parties are basically working
for themselves all this.
Politicians are working for themselves, you know, and then you know the thought of citizens and protecting the lowest common denominator, none of those things exist anymore. That's and and with the lobbyists and everything else is just it's a very messy situation at this point.
Well anything both parties can agree upon we should probably oppose this voters. So one of the things that both parties agree upon for example is not having term limits, right but I think term limits would help go some of the way to work towards solving what you're talking about, which is really capture of politicians. They have think the same way because they impart the DC intelligence and the DC intellectual crowd, you know, the another interesting thing would be to take federal Offices and put them outside of DC so you don't have everyone like
Having groupthink and you know becoming one sort of elite sector with very homogeneous beliefs in a way the the two-party system. I don't think it was initially anticipated by the framers of the Constitution many things were not like, for example me having the right to vote would not have been anticipated in the Constitution, but one of the things I didn't anticipate was the formation of political parties because I think they didn't want to press Place restrictions around speech and if you don't Place restrictions on speech which I think is the correct answer,
Then you automatically get attempts to monopolize the vote you get people to ganging up to monopolize the vote and that creates the parties and eventually leads to a two-party system because number two and number three always just gang up against number one and so two-party system is kind of inevitable in the way. Our system is designed but that's not necessarily all bad David Deutsch makes a he's a physicist and philosopher of sorts. He makes the great argument that two-party system actually is good in that it lets you clearly pin pin the blame on one party who's in power.
And their policies when those policies go poorly. So this time around Trump's handling a covid-19 great. So he got pinned for it and he's out, you know, whether you agree or not. There was someone clearly to blame where some the parliamentary system where you're splitting power is not clear who was in charge and oh maybe it was you know, the part of the party in charge so called wanted to do it but there was a fringe Coalition formed out of some radicals that they had to include who want to do it a different way and so in a parliamentary system, it's much harder to hold people accountable.
So it's hard to switch back when you make a mistake. So I think that you know, the Republicans were in power for a little while and they overreached and they got depose and now the Democrats have nearly total power over our government and they will probably overreach and probably get deposed and sort of go back and forth.
I think it's funny that if you look at the three industries were government have the most influence the most regulation housing Healthcare and education. They seem to be the three
The streets where they just hasn't been any productivity growth whatsoever or affect the opposite may be happening as well.
Yeah, in fact all the inflation in the price increases were there the the value of an education is going down or not. Not that I'm education education is always valuable but I would say the value University degree is going down right University degrees are becoming like taxi medallions not they like the scarce thing that gives you a medium outcome, but everybody sort of knows it doesn't mean what it used to mean and it's just one Uber like destruction away from being rendered irrelevant.
Isn't it has already been in the tech industry to some extent and other Industries and they follow what we saw the credentialing problem housing. Yeah. Absolutely. It's been propped up through Freddie Maggard Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae pumping out cheap loans for a long time, you know, so housing prices continue to stay flat or go up because it's a store of wealth for most people and so when we print money a lot of it just goes into there and then Healthcare. Yeah, it's complete debacle, so you're right, but at the same time, you know,
The issue is like what a true public goods right once something becomes a public good then the government kind of gets involved and you sort of end up with these situations Healthcare is arguably the most public good out of the three that we mentioned. But since we decided to make housing not just housing, but the little own a house almost like the American way and a basic right then we sort of subsidizing it then of course, there's there's there's bad acting and with education. Yeah same thing we decided like
Everybody should be able to go to college but we didn't Define what they should be going to college for and what actual skills that will be graduating with and we pretend when we when we underwrite someone's student debt. We pretend that a degree in sociology is just as valuable as a degree in medicine, which is just as valuable as a degree in computer science, but that's just not true. We also pretend like a degree from Stanford is just as good as degree from, you know State University, but that's just not true. So governments is very very blunt instrument.
I'd like to push back on that just a little bit though because the school that I went to and I've seen that in a lot of different schools engineering degrees at this point actually cost more than liberal arts degrees or they actually price them higher as like than they would like a sociology degree. So I don't think we're pretending that but I do see what you're
saying. Well the government is pretending that because they'll give you a subsidized loan for either one. I mean if if if if you could default on student loans, I believe currently you cannot.
Like you can't get a student loan even in bankruptcy and that's a horrible law. But but there's an artificial rule that you can't get out of a student loan and bankruptcy. If you could get out of the student loan in bankruptcy if you could default and it was Private lenders only you would not be able to take on debt to go into many of these degree bearing programs that many of these universities the vast majority of them would just vanish in a big puff of smoke.
Yeah. And what's worrying. Is that over the past hundred two hundred years as the same Institution.
The same colleges / universities that have maintained the top ranks the hard words that Oxford's the Cambridge Yale excetera. Whereas if you look at any other industry, like that's just not the case things change like in the technology industry. There's a reason IBM on at the top anymore and you know, the list goes on so why is it
then I'll give you the counter example to that which is it is somewhat true even in the tech industry the top VC Brands. There are some turnover certainly more than theirs in universe.
Cities but they're relatively static. So you the Kleiner Perkins the Sequoias of the world tend to stay on top and it's very hard to break into those ranks. And the reason is because colleges and VC firms are very similar businesses their curation and signaling businesses. What they do is they get applicants the curate them. They find the smartest people and then they signal to the world uses smartest people the transfer reputation to them and then if they're correct, they get credit for that they get paid for that and then they're funnel at the top expands and they get even more
To pick from and they all get to pick the best ones again and they just repeat and it's the VC model the same way these fund companies if they have a few early successes, then their signal becomes valuable and then they get a better class of companies to curate from so everyone knows who the top deals in Silicon Valley are just like all these colleges know who the top students are but the top students get end up going to the top universities because they want the top university brand the top startups end up going to top VC is because they want the top VC brand. So the rich
Get richer and to those who have more and more is given and it's kind of a loop around this curation and signaling that feeds into each other. It's a feedback cycle. So they do kind of establish themselves the top now you can break in but to break in you have to create a gargantuan brand from scratch. So if you can kind of side and slide in sideways and create a huge new brand from scratch you get to play. So how does that happen in Venture Capital? You can be Andreessen Horowitz or you can be y
Matter, which is Andreessen Horowitz is you walk in with a huge brand you throw a lot of money at the problem and you create something new. Why common that it is you just do something different you take on a class of entrepreneur that nobody was willing to help before same way on the school side. You can do something brand new and that's like the Lambda School model, which is you take in the class of students and train them for the thing that normal schools just aren't willing to do so it is possible to break into these creation signaling businesses, but there's a very natural feedback loop that leads to a few winners.
hours of the top or very static for a long period of time
Now it is true that the compounding factor of reputation in these industries is causing a shift towards certain direction without others having the opportunity to actually break in that's what I'm getting from the past five minutes that you were talking about. Can you give me a more specific example in question like you mentioned about Harvard like they basically take in the cream of the crop from all the schools just because the they want the smartest people to come in so that they can
Limit their brand further and hence the people who would want to have that sort of reputation. They apply to only IVs for example Harvard Stanford Yale.
Yeah, it's going to be a very hard effective break. I don't know the solution to the problem. I think the signaling curation you can get an education without going to Harvard. You can build a great Alumni network without current Hardware which you can't get as you can't get that easy step that credential that credential of I went to Harvard the doors that opens that is the part that's incredibly difficult to replace and I'm not sure how or who is going to replace that with in the tech industry if you went to y combinator
You know, that's probably good enough. You don't need to go to Harvard or if you have funded by top VC. If you start a cool company, or even if you build a great open source project or even if you have an amazing blog or Twitter, it might get you past but in most Industries Harvard is still
Harvard.
I would like to come in, please.
Yeah, boy, thank you.
I think yeah valid points on the the ivy league system. It's essentially
a stamp based model that your credential eyes Dand given approval that you are one of the crew and therefore can join certain institutions and have access to certain jobs. I think there's a watershed moment when Silicon Valley allowed people to apply for jobs without a college degree. I think know Google and some of the other big firms are Advocates of it's more skilled.
East so I think one way of trying to escape the sort of shackles of this credential izing whether its high-end y combinator Ivy League's is to make it solely skills by so if you had say but even this is dangerous that you create another system of sorts. You have a website where basically skill-based and you get a stamp saying that you are level 27 at the end of the end of the day everything is a proxy for proof of work, right? So either you did the work to get into Harvard you were good enough then or you do the work late.
Redo the work on the side somehow but everything is a proxy for proof of work. And if you're not willing to do the work, then ya know system is going to recognize, you know system can possibly recognize you so you have to be willing to do the work. Now the shortest path I would argue if you're a smart kid today is actually to get into Harvard or Stanford and then drop out immediately. That way you grab the most important credential which is I got into Harvard and then you can parlay it into a great job or a great career or just go do whatever the heck it is that you actually want to do that's productive as
Most people doing the performance art of being a student for four years.
So now Liz it proof of work or is it proof of
achievement?
And I use proof-of-work glibly because it Maps into the Block Chain space but it's sort of it doesn't matter when you did the work. You might have done the work between the ages of 8 to 14 sitting in your apartment reading books or coding on your computer or what have you are designing or drawing while the other kids were out socializing and playing but it doesn't have to be necessarily work that is done immediately at the moment, but it is proof that you did the work in the past to become who you are heck, you know some portion of that unpopular to say is just genetic work your parents did the work your parents.
instead the word and the genes that got you here well adapted to this particular academic environment thinking that it's possible that with the lockdowns that we've forced to rethinking of our education system where parents are looking for alternatives for their children, and then we have people like James altucher who are talking about you know that they want people who are not
trained by
Bird
in these schools because they since you have to unchain them
so that they can work independently
and so is it possible that we are moving to New systems of proof of work but not that much. I mean, I think more people hopefully we'll come out of this being pro homeschooling and we'll get to see a lot more experiments in that space and the internet should hopefully enable them to do that, but I don't see that as a mass movement. I think for most people school is an attractive bundle of Daycare Plus.
Plus education and you know all rolled into one but it's unpopular to talk about the dick Kerr part. But if you see a lot of people who are basically saying, hey, we need schools reopen what they're basically saying is I can't handle the kids at home. And that's that's a valid concern me. If you're living in a to working parent household. It's really hard to have kids in the house. Well, you're both trying to work also and you know have your sanity about you, but for some reason we're not allowed to talk about that. Now what if you were to design a school from the ground up?
But that wasn't designed to indoctrinate but rather it was you know built by people who decided okay, you know kids. This is really just daycare right as they care for people who are not yet old enough to take on the responsibility of being full adults to society but are biologically, you know old enough that historically they would have been out fighting Wars are getting pregnant. What have you so let's put you into this daycare center where you get free play you get to learn your own dime you get socialized the teachers don't
We have to act like you're prison wardens. They like having you around there. Just kind of keeping a loose eye on you. I don't know. I mean, I don't I haven't really thought this through but school is hopefully going to get redesigned but again because the state has his fingers in the pie. It's going to move very very slowly and maybe not even the right directions at the end of the day adaptation happens an individual Level Society follows, the individuals actions. It doesn't lead the individuals actions. So what we'll see happening is enough individuals of break.
Ah from the existing system, they'll form their own little systems and hopefully those will guide side of the road and the correct direction, but I think that's going to be in the direction of more choice. And so ideally in my world there be full on vouchers, whatever the cost it takes to go to public school every poor kid with a choice take that money and go to a private school instead. And so that would create some level of choice homeschooling is no level of choice unschooling which is kids didn't go to school home or anywhere else in the kind just do whatever they want and they want would be another
Level of choice. It's not as bad as you think on school kids actually turn out to be only one grade behind public school kids. Think about that by the time you're in 12th grade if you hadn't gone to school at all if you just sat at home and done whatever the heck it is you wanted whenever you wanted you'd be the equivalent of an 11th grade student and they're even studies that show that you would catch up when you went to college and be indistinguishable from a public school student and homeschool students are years ahead of public school students even years. I had a private year school students. So there's a lot of there's a lot of
slack in the system for Innovation. If you really genuinely cared about your child's education, you would not Outsource it to a public school or even a private school you would take responsibility for it. Obviously that's very difficult to do that requires a certain level of means but it can also be done through neighborhood and Community right home school doesn't mean that you sit at home and try to teach your kid calculus. It means that you actually get together with other people in your neighborhood. And again, you solve the problem at a local level with a lot of thought and involvement.
California with these little PODS of families that are feeling safe to get together with only a maybe like three to five different families and they're laying the groundwork actually ironically out of Harvard to sort of say why homeschooling is should be illegal and why it's a bad thing and it's, you know a terrible thing to school kids at home. It kind of reminds you of the journalist. Currently the New York Times were busy attacking some stack or
The house, you know as a as an unfettered place or a place for unfettered conversations, so you can see the Old Guard is getting ready to mount an attack against homeschooling because they're going to feel very very threatened. You know, how can you have tenure have been her unionized jobs that allow you to be first in line for the vaccine, but not have to go back to work for years if people have a choice.
Wouldn't the wooden the bar for this proof of work for admissions to prestige colleges be different for various groups. For example for someone in the top 0.001% of cognoscenti if they don't have connections and if they have connections say for example, legacy admissions or donations, then it's good enough if they're in the top 1%
Yeah, I don't know. I assume that there is a lot of the back scratcher that goes on but I don't necessarily mind because I feel like it's some level the harbors of the world have this unspoken trade going on which they're not allowed to talk about but with which is real that hey the you know, the rich kids parents give us the money and then we can use that money to educate and bring up the poor kids and at some level you can view Harvard as a giant dating site, which is matching up the smartest kids with the richest kids. So the
Smart kids can go invest The Fortunes of the richest kids or you know, take their capital and bring in brilliant labor and build huge businesses or build scientific research or what have you so it's a trade going on and it's actually fine with me, but I think a lot of people can't handle that that trade be made is explicit. It drives them crazy thinking that everything is a meritocracy and it kind of is you can have a you can have a meritocracy in the sense of you know, the smart kids.
Getting recognized by Harvard pulled up but expecting that everyone will be equal going in. Everyone will be equal coming out. It's just impossible. This is not how nature works not a society works.
So it seems then that these these institutions which provide a stamp of approval like the big VC firms like the Legacy educational universities and colleges based in to be they're going to they're here to stay so actually so do you
Companies so up
in that sense it is there they're here to stay until the entire system is disrupted. So to give an example in crypto the Legacy VC brand doesn't matter that much because the entire system is moving to an into to a different way of doing things same way in the tech industry the Legacy college credentials University credentials, by the way, they still matter no matter what Google says they do care a lot about what university you went to in fact in the early days if you wanted to be a pro.
P.m. At Google, you know having been at McKinsey or Harvard or so on was a much better path and trying to prove your work otherwise, no despite whatever they might have bark it externally, but I would say that when the whole system changes like you see happening in Silicon Valley or you see happening and you know in crypto then you get reform but you don't piecemeal reform doesn't work these these networks are too tightly and meshed into each other. I don't know how to describe it, but it's a form of a network effect where the VC businesses and
The vet things sort of in meshed into this ecosystem. It's like trying to it's like trying to change how things grow in a garden right everything depends on everything else. So it's very hard to change one thing in isolation or wish that one thing worked with different way. That's all in mashed. But if you burn the garden down or you grow another Garden next door, then you get changed. Then the whole thing gets me off from the ground up.
Okay, then sew along along the same vein then D think companies like apple companies at the top right now. Do you think they'll be overthrown?
In Our Lifetime
finally when I was when I was first getting the tech business I was kind of depressed because I thought Microsoft and Intel would rule the world forever and they were just these highly impressive companies and would be so difficult to like do anything interesting. Well, they took control of everything and I loved Apple at the time I bled six colors. I used a Mac. I was a good apple Fanboy. And in fact when I got to Silicon Valley the first thing I did after I got to my little apartment and left my bags. It was I went to one.
And I looked at the Apple campus and I remember being disappointed with a plain little building it was but I still just loved apple and now it's really ironic to me that apple is the big hegemon that's beating up people with 30% App Store attack Cindy platforming people and you know sort of it just apple is more impressive than Microsoft Windows Microsoft and Intel everywhere because if you think about it, the PC was an open platform in the sense of anyone can write an app and run it but now you can't run app on your iPhone. That's
it approved. You can't ship an app on your iPhone except to the App Store. You can't just charge people money and iPhone app and keep it all they got to give them 30 percent. You can't compete with them. If they don't want you to their certain apps. They just don't even open up or a lot of the apis Microsoft and Intel were way more open than that. So ironically this this is already played up for now. We'll Apple and Google get conceited in our lifetimes. I don't know the mobile phone is an extremely tight lock because they've got hardware and software and services work.
Synchronicity, but I think there are pieces of it. They will start getting unbundle I think crypto has a decentralization has a good chance of decentralized and social networks. Certainly Steve centralizing finance. And when you start with the essentials of Finance, then you have the building blocks of start going after the other pieces cryptos decentralizing finance and governance and if you think about it, those are like to two of the most lock down regulated protect identities around and so if you can take out those two systems,
And decentralize them then you have a shot at decentralized and everything else but I suspect open mobile systems will be pretty late in the game because they require not just networks. They also require enormous amount of software and most importantly the required hardware.
Yeah, probably the the real question is is this just an extension of Steve Jobs or is this or apple right now genuinely innovating like are they just on cruise control from work or from from Steve Jobs or or
They you know, they really innovating it. This is hard to tell right now.
I don't know but I my feeling is that didn't more on cruise control, but that cruise control is going to take them a long ways because they're cruising at a high speed in the wide-open road. So, you know the fact that Buffett invested tells you everything you need to know he views as an impregnable Fortress is going to last for decades, but in terms of innovation would have innovated better under Steve and when I say Steve and I think when you say Steve you mean Steve and Steve screw, right? So the Johnny iives of the
World and the Ivy trevanian's and whoever else was involved, right? He kind of had this crew around him. I think that crew would probably have done things differently. The two things I would point to is. First of all, look at what Apple was before they came in right it when Gil Amelio and crew in the people before that were running it. That's more that's more what you can look at to see what Apple without jobs in his team look like and I think the second reason to kind of think think of it this way happening this way is I see a
Going into a lot of things where it's really bad and sort of trying to show off for status and just kind of failing so like things like Beats headphones or apple music, you know, these sorts of things are just or like they're Siri or kind of online services or basically anything Apple's done online has been kind of a miserable failure and I see them chasing into sort of status like businesses that are not Court of them that said they have still done incredible Innovations post Steve Job. The earpods is probably a very good example I do.
Don't know if that was launched to put in motion. Priest e posti people Steve hired, who knows Apple will probably be on top for quite a while. I don't know where the displacement happens. Google is at least thank God Google is around in that sense. If there was only one mobile operating system. We'd all converged on whether it was Apple or whether it was Google if either one of them had one there would almost be no Silicon Valley as we know it because that one monopolist would be extracting all the profits of the
And we have very very little incentive to behave but at least we have two of them. I think there was a recent announcement that Google is lowering its App Store fees to 15% or something like that. I'm sure it's a lot more complicated the headline I think dig into it, but that's enough to tell you if there's at least some competition going on, which is good
Google and apple are the tech world's two-party system.
Exactly. Ha ha ha
I wonder I want to go back to the point. You were making their world around changing the system and what's happening now be crypto and the centralization there's so many different aspects of changing the system
needs to happen. As you mentioned. There's financial sector education
system sector the government's and all of the other actors. I wonder if there's any way to predict
which force should be next to.
This to push the system to its Tipping Point so we can have either the crash of the system or forcing the
you know, that stab the establishment of the system to take another Direction.
Yeah, well, I'm hoping it's a slow and peaceful transition, you know crash my life. I have it uranium background. So I'm almost for revolution. Yeah, and I think everyone who's on this call has a pretty good life. Like if you own an iPhone and you can be in clubhouse your life is decent and you probably should not be hoping for anything like an overthrow look finances a big one if Crypt if all crypto does is it decentralizes finance that is massive that's 20 percent of the economy. That's the levers of power that changes the economics and the
Systems of wealth creation that are available to us. That's a big one and if you change governance that goes with it, if you change voting if you change like how communities of people online can self adjudicate that's another big one I think social is going to be a big one. We will see social protocols will see Innovation the social domain for decentralized social networks. I think you'll see in gaming will have gaming protocols with long live games that may actually become the foundations for eventually layering on a meadow versed you're seeing things and FTS.
There's art which I don't really understand because I don't collect art myself, but it looks pretty hot. So, you know, there's a lot going on. I think that just the but you have to remember that crypto only operates in the digital domain. It works because of encryption and trying to map it or carry its effects in the physical domain is not going to work that well because the physical domain still eventually runs into who owns what physically and then people with guns can come up in take it from you. So who controls the people with the guns and that's laws and lawyers and judges.
Cryptos reach is limited to the digital domain, but that's a big domain. We're spending a lot of our lives and time in that so I think there's a there's a lot of good stuff to come from crypto, but it's unfortunately going to be limited in the digital domain, but guess what Finance is almost entirely if not entirely in the digital domain finances purely digital. So that's that's a big one, right the whole internet Revolution happened from 1994 till now and finance was basically unscathed Wall Street got to continue running the Way That Wall Street always runs very very
Minor changes you want to talk about signaling curation businesses. The investment banks are signaling curation business, you know, Warren Buffett is in a signaling curation business. So these can all get disrupted through crypto. And these are this is the beginning. So when you have 20% of the economy and the wealthiest people and the ones most protected by regulations who are essentially wring tears and toll takers on large chunks of the economy. And if you want to talk about an old boys club that's impossible to break into that thing is going to get disrupted by crypto and
Really around to watch for that now. I hope that can happen bloodlessly but there's always a chance they'll try and weaponize the State against crypto because those people are not going to go without a fight. So hopefully we're just co-opting than one at a time as a Michael Sailors of the world tune into Bitcoin. The Radiology is the world turning the Bitcoin and buy it and that's just the beginning because you poked your nose down the Bitcoin rabbit hole. Then you fall one level down you find the theorem then you fall one level down and then you find a whole bunch of other coins. Then you fall into the bottom pit and you find defy and maybe you just crawl your way.
Back out and shake your head and your back at the Bitcoin level you like hanging out there because it's better to let them down below but there's a lot of innovation happening down the Deep bowels of crypto.
You've spoken about building social protocols on top of more programmable cryptocurrencies for such a long time now and like I'm sure you've seen a bunch of startups here have claimed. Hey, look this is the first decentralized social protocol Etc. I'm sure you've seen a bunch of them. Why do you think that bit clouds seems to be the one
contraction right now
Big but I don't want to talk too much about it because yeah, it's a weird one. I would say a bit clout actually has an application right there. Like you can actually go in there and use it whenever the site is up and I played with it a little bit but I think we still have a long ways to go. I think part of the reason why it's catching on right now is also because cryptos going through another boom people are speculating on tokens, and it's kind of a mad rush to make money which you know, we're kind of in a frenzy and most easy.
Cancer probably overvalued right now, especially the niche ones and then I think there's also kind of a Nifty craze going on which I don't fully understand. Like I think there's definitely some value then FTS, especially when they're within the context of a game or a metaverse or a song inside of a player but the same time, you know, paying 70 million dollars for a JPEG or a series of jpegs or a video seems completely bananas to me, but then I don't understand art. I don't collect art. I get no value out of having art. So I'm just not hardwired for It Fun.
Mentally collecting and displaying art is a status game. And I just don't like status games. I'm just not hardwired for it not to say it's not a real thing not to say it might not have a lead other people, but I simply don't understand it. But I think the nft craze kind of tied in to the whole coin speculation craze also tied in the fact that people want an alternative to the centralized social networks. I think all of those are kind of creating a perfect storm where people are looking and I think we're going to see hopefully a whole group of decentralized social.
That makes coming up. I think it's a really really hard problem to solve. You have to break the network effect for the existing ones. You have to create something new anytime you incentivize something with money you tend to get low quality content. So I think that you know seed communities are very important. It's a really hard problem to solve. I hope somebody solves it. I think it's probably the greatest quest of you know, the next 10 years.
I think even if we solve the problem of decentralization, I don't think decentralization and Auntie leaders and I the same thing even if you have decentralisation, you still have a little some like the clouds of perfect example, it's a decentralized social current social network, but like it's celebrity is monetizing their level of celebrity, right? And even with NF tease, you can say that oh, this is a great way for like artists who haven't had the chance or the money to be discovered to get Discovery, but if you think about
The end of teeth that have been valued the most is from artists that have had this long following and built a lot of traction or people who aren't artists at. All. Right, like Jack dorsey's first tweet is now and then ft Elon musk's nft about end of T's is an N of T. That's sold a lot Grimes. Well, she's had a great career and she's definitely credible on herself on her own. But if you look at the kind of people that are investing in buying her and of teas are really buying it because she's tied to wipe man that has promised.
Dense, and they're betting on him. So I think that there's a slight Nuance between decentralization and something that's not elitist. And I think I'm more interested in someone figuring out the ladder. Also just to kind of go back to a couple of other things that were said II do agree that the change to make gains point isn't going to be or to answer nagging question. I also think that it's not going to be a step change its going to be incremental and that's partially because the systems are so interconnected. So if you think about education if
To get to a point where everyone gets to do whatever they want to study and they have kind of like full ownership of like what they want to learn and mess around with whatever subject of their choosing. That's great. But you'll still have people tending towards the subject that's valued the most by Society. So people will still become or try to work towards science and math and coding because that's what society makes you think pays the most so on.
Until we can kind of equalize that if we should equalize that and say like yes in order and a painter are worth just as much as a coder and a engineer then you'll have true equality. And then that's where things will really start to break down. But until like not just the ability to choose whatever you want to study but also the value given to that choice is equal
to the value. The value is set by the market. How can you say an artist has to have the same value as a coder? I mean, how would you
Horse that oh, no, I'm not at all. I'm just saying that to me. That's what I'm saying. Like even if you give everybody the choice to study whatever they want to study that doesn't necessarily mean true equality in the outcome, right equal opportunity equal equal opportunity is not equal outcome not saying that the market should or will give equal weight. I'm just saying that there's a slight distinction between the two
there's also think that the people who are hoping that artists are going to get rich off of and it sees are probably going to be
sorely disappointed. I think there is a small head of artists who are going to get extremely wealthy like a very small head and the vast vast vast majority will get lost in a long tail. We're only about a month away from this gigantic tsunami of nft is where every single thing that can be digitized will be digitized and thrown up as an entity somewhere and they'll be people throwing up nft. Either other people's IP and claiming it as their own and then there will be people be giving memes and and of T's of n of T is and jokes have been ftes and
I think we're very quickly going to find out that just as kind of like Bitcoin and maybe you know ether sort of the only established stores of value. Probably only just bit coin and crypto the same way. There's only going to be a few things that are going to be Mona Lisa equivalent digital domain and will have created such a showing point to value that people will go up great Fame in the fur on them that they'll capture and hold value. So I don't know how any of these involved in like I said, I don't know how the Art Market works, but I think we're about to see a giant flood
Of n of T is coming in and then we're going to find out what and of teas are actually worth in whose and if these are actually worth
something. Yeah, I think that I think the thing that I'm trying to say that there's a misconception that nft is our equivalent to like true artists like traditional artists were recognized for their art to nft is are more related to the value of the person. So again, you have like just big names like Legion and Elon Musk who aren't necessarily artist but something that they've kind of minted into some form of digital
All currency was given a lot of weight. So there's like a misconception between what nft is are on what artist but yeah not disagreeing with what's being
said. Yeah, and if T is a very big category, right? It can apply to a like a pointer to a file living on the blockchain. And so, you know, it's kind of gives you the right turn piece of art. It could be a domain name system, which is actually within a regulated sort of framework and then you have exclusive access to that domain it.
Gives you some capability you wouldn't have otherwise or it could be in a meadow verse context or in a video game context where I get like a certain artifact and now you can't have it because that system actually enforces the N of T. So but a lot of these and of teas are they don't really give you anything other than bragging rights, which is fine that the bragging rights the status has value to especially if you get into a world of this completely virtual with all deep fakes and who knows what's real then a verified nft is an is an unfixable.
Of status right? But again, these are kind of back to status games which I don't really understand.
Yeah, they've been Thompson
just texted so they've been Thompson just texted me and accuse me of playing the I don't play the status game status game. So well done Ben now you get some status for having made that comment. So now we can play the been Tom's and get status by pointing out that Duvall is not playing is playing a status game by pretending to not pay status
game. I think was like more like
likely than anything else who are probably going to see nft is of the next like housing bubble burst. And that's going to be really funny and really sad. Yeah well enough on it might have been your line. I can't remember who it was but someone said what can become software will eventually become software and I think the same is true for nfc's what can become an NST will eventually become an mft.
Yeah, the thunder coming biology would say he has a he has a more longer range of you in the future than I do.
And so he tends to come up with stuff like that that it that looks a little Ludacris in the present, but turns out to be inevitably true 10 years later.
No, well, I have a question with this decentralization of Education that you were talking right recently like a few months back or a few weeks back. I don't remember there was an article that said that Google recruiters. They only see the cream University people who come from the thick cream universities from various countries, and then they send it to the know whoever but if let's say that
I don't let's say that I learned from a town and then I don't go to a cream University but I passed some skill set. So but that mindset has to change right then I won't get a job. So these universities are going to remain for short right?
Yes. The universe is remain except for the true cream of the crop. It's sort of like, you know, no offense to anyone tender, but I would guess at the highest highest quality people aren't on Tinder because they just get taken off the market too quickly. So
So the same way like the absolute best people aren't applying for jobs at Google. They're starting companies or they're going to more Boutique smaller companies that have higher growth trajectories and where they can kind of work more as a generalist and gain experience and rise up the ladder much much faster going to Google at this point, you know, it's we're not quite at the status of it being like going to IBM in the 1970s, but we're probably getting closer to that. So I don't I don't think the absolute cream of the crop is going to Google and I don't
It should be any surprise to anyone who's in Senior Management at Google. It's probably what they worry about all day long and there's just no way around it. It's a scale problem. Once your certain size the best people don't want to work there anymore. It's just a pure size thing now unless they're running the place and there's just very few of those slots.
Do you think censorship will still play D socialized social media or do you think there's ways that will be that will help to to inherently like decompress that or and if and if so what what do you propose a Solutions?
Well decentralized social media will have decentralized censorship every time I don't want to hear from someone I meet or block them and that's private censorship and that's okay because it's at the local level. It's an individual decision is not a
Down impose one-size-fits-all decision. I don't have a problem with censoring everyone. Just let me decide who to censor on why right? That's the problem. The problem is who gets to do it because what we got to do it no matter how well meaning gets to be in charge. Sure. Let's answer just hate speech. Awesome. Just let me Define hate. Speech not even Define it. Let me just adjudicate what hate speech is you can even Define it. I'll just carry out the interpretation. It's like Cardinal Richelieu said give me six sentences from any honest men. I will have him hanged so you
Can you can catch someone on anything as long as you're in charge of interpreting the law so I think that eventually where this has to head is decentralized censorship. So what that means is I can censor You by muting your blocking you you can mute or block me if you think that's not scalable. Then you can subscribe to a mute or block list that I put together and that will mute and block all the people that have curated for you. So essentially you select me as an editor if that's not scalable. Then you can subscribe to professional mute block list so you could basically say I trust
Your times to censor my content, you could even take it one level further and you could switch platforms if Clubhouse or Twitter will protocols that truly had multiple independent clients, then different clients could run different censorship policies. You could even have a version of Twitter that was safe for your children, which obviously is not the case today Twitter actually besides all the hatred and invective and so on that it has on the platform also the ton of pornography and I'm sure all of you who have stumbled into it accidentally and be like, holy cow. What is this on my screen get the
back button so you can you can distribute the roles and the more distributed is the more local it is kind of the better off. It is for
everybody. Hi, then I have a question. Then who has the data of who blocks who and who gets the profit off but data and if there are people building stuff based off of that data then do they have to pay for that data to they pay the individuals for that data or is that data? Just not accessible by anybody trying to profit off of it.
Well, first of all, I don't see the problem with people trying to profit off of data kind depends how they do it like this data all day long the people profit off of like that's just the nature of data. But if you're referring to privacy data private data sure I should be able to make my mute and blocklist private and no one should have access to that unless I give them access to that and I should be able to sell that or I should be able to open it up to people that are trust or I should really make it public and it's actually kind of similar to how lists work on Twitter today. I can have a private list and I can have a public list. They don't yet.
Give me the ability to do a paid list, but eventually they'll probably add that as part of the super follow features. So I don't think the issues in this really people profiting off data. It's just protecting individual privacy giving people a choice. The beauty of crypto is that all the data is protected by private keys. So people get a lot more control over the did in fact crypto applications are built inside out applications like this application Clubhouse. The code is all closed source, and the data is owned by the company Alpha exploration company. Which owns
House, so they get to do whatever they want with the data in crypto lend each user owns their own data and because their data is protected with their private key and because the meta data is protected by blockchain consensus IE. We all have to agree the miners have to agree on what to put in the blockchain. The application itself is completely open source, which makes it this beautiful thing called composable. That's a really going to hear a lot more in the future crypto apps are composable which means they plug into each other like Lego blocks every crypto app, essentially not every but within
Certain parameters can work with many other crypto apps which is something apps here. Don't do notice how I'm Clubhouse you ever different identity than you have on Twitter. You have a you have different follow graph than you do on Twitter. You have to rebuild everything when you come out of Clubhouse crypto apps wouldn't work like that crypto social network would just suck in the graph from an existing crypto social network. It would suck in the user profiles from identities built in a different place in might sucking domain name data from the third place. It might pull in your end of T art.
Section from a fourth place and put it on your profile. It might pull in your crypto wallet so you can receive donations or tips or money from a fifth place in my Put on Your sponsorship MI6 place. So every crypto app that gets built essentially talks to other crypto apps and becomes a better more powerful thing. They're extremely difficult to build because they have this no trust model. We don't trust anyone we have to be ready for anything but it does mean that as they do get built their Rock Solid and what they're building is sort of this this
pile of powerful Legos going on top of each other. It looks small today, but eventually are going to create a super structure that I think will be very hard for legacy apps to complete compete with
Just Go With It
Yeah orbit is kind of just incredibly cool geeky science project. I think which sort of has a very good futuristic vision of how the decentralized world should work and everyone should run their own server, but in the process Arabic kind of made up its own nomenclature, its own programming language its own Paradigm for how to think about things in stone architecture its own design. It's just too difficult for mere mortals that grasp. I think if you're a good team wants to successful they have to start building end-user apps that were unimaginable.
The boat and shipping them in volume depends showed that system works, but it's architectural e so different from anything else that exists today that it just hasn't seen Mass market adoption by Developers.
Simran I saw you on mute. Did you have something you wanted to say? Yeah. Thanks. Hina Vault. I saw the CEO of Whole Foods was on Joe Rogan a while back and talking about something. I wanted to get your take on which is that Academia at the highest level is more Pro socialism because they've basically realized that capitalism does not reward their profession or work. He basically kind of
The analogy that these are kind of the kids that are book smart, but not Street Smart. Do you think there's ever going to be a resolution to that? And what would that look like or will these kind of forces always be at odds?
Well, I think it's a it's a part of a larger amount of principal which is you can really get your feedback from right when you're doing your work or when you're going about your life what tells you you're wrong because all of life is sort of a creation and then error correction process if you're in evolution evolution.
Solution Works through variation of genes and then natural selection weeds out the ones that didn't work. If you're trying to invent something you try something you get errors trial and error, then you iterate iterate iterate and then in science you make conjectures and you get criticism. If you're building a company, you're always trying new things and you're getting feedback from the market and you're feeling so every system every person every set of ideas involves through feedback feedback feedback. You're always trying things and getting feedback if you couldn't get feedback.
You'd essentially stagnating die. So the question the key question really is. Where are you getting your feedback from? And I would argue there's two broad categories. There's the people who get their feedback from free markets or from nature. So if you're a scientist, then your experiment actually has to work out in the physics lab for example, or if you're an inventor and you build a plane the plane actually has to fly you're getting feedback from nature. And if you're wrong your plane crashes you die or your company fails similarly if you're
Waiting in the free markets if you're an investor or your Trader or you're raising money to do a project as an entrepreneur, if you fail you lose your money the market punishes You by taking the money away and driving you bankrupt. These are systems that are very unforgiving and so people don't like them because they have a sense of right and wrong success and failure and they lead to highly unequal outcomes and you know farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs would probably and people running businesses or working in businesses, especially close to the customer and
The money I'm going to get feedback from free markets and from nature. And then the other side is you have people who are getting feedback from other people. And so these could be journalists. These could be academics. These can be politicians. And so those people naturally end up into socialism because they have to keep other people happy. So it's more about looking good then doing good. It's more about kind of getting the rewards and getting clapped in the back for yeah, you tried to help you know, now let's all go, you know the congratulate each other. I don't mean to belittle too much you need some
of both if you went with only the scientist Creator academic types and there were none of the academic types you'd end up in a great dog eat dog world, right? It would be very brutal. It would be almost malthusian or darwinistic. We're so if you went to the Other Extreme side where everything is based on what other people tell you it's all about social approval you you know, that's social media social media favors socialist because social social media, all your feedback is from other people. It's all likes and follows based on what other people like, so I think politics
Journalism in Academia naturally tend toward socialism, whereas of course businesses, you know things like farming invention creativity and research in the physical sciences tends towards I would say Leslie capitalism, but more of a meritocracy, you know at the end of the day like one really funny line that I heard. It's not mature pejorative on either side, but it was just a good line was that leftist or people who hate Market Market outcomes and right Wingers are people who left Wingers, right?
Right brightest are people who hate leftists. So what that kind of says is that there's a bunch of people who say men wouldn't it be great if we were all equal and those, you know, those people don't like Evolution. They don't like the way Evolution Works. They don't like the way free markets work. They don't like the way Mother Nature works, right? That's unfortunate. And it's good because if that instinct didn't exist in the human race, like I said, it would be a dog-eat-dog world. We'd all be left to our own devices, you know in the household is mom who always wants us to get along she wants to call the kids to behave because she loves everybody she wants it to work out equally for everybody but the same
Fine, you know maybe dad or you can switch Mom and Dad around if you're a non traditional household, you know, it has to go out there and work the farm in an old-school world and he doesn't he knows it's not equal. Someone has to someone has to like lift things and kill things and carry things and build things. So these are just like the masculine feminine sides of nature playing out but any society which is overrun with feedback from only one side will be imbalanced and what social media has done recently. It is really Amplified this
Idea that everyone takes feedback from each other, you know here we are close friends thousands of us in a room. This was unimaginable just a few years ago. It was impossible 10 years ago. So social media is driving us more and more towards socialist Tendencies because stitching us together, but at the same time there are countervailing forces cryptos making everybody investor, right subjecting the free market forces. So there are countervailing forces. It's very difficult to say how this plays out.
Thanks. That's
Very interesting and I had one quick question to follow up on that, you know in your podcast and in your podcast with Joe Rogan you talked about kind of the mob mentality and kind of the foot soldiers in the mob that are easily manipulated. Are you ever surprised at how companies will try to appease these people that essentially don't really have a stake in their business or I guess like buying power.
Our I mean I don't think you're really surprised by anything. But I am
some know I've driven by the profit motive and when they act woke they're acting work because they think it'll bring them bigger profits. So the kind of just want to be left alone. You know, I like I just noticed upfront sometimes I'm a little surprised by when I see companies doing things that they're cynically just sort of signaling to the outside world are behaving a certain way.
They literally just do it because it's the easiest way to get the thing out of their hair and get the job done right there. Just dispassionate about it. It's unfortunate. But Nassim taleb had that great blog post and chapter in his book skin in the game about the intolerant minority and about how intolerant minorities actually run the world around us. And when I was growing up in the 1980s, the most intolerant minority was the Christian right wing and so, you know, this was the Nancy Nancy Reagan don't do drugs crowd and you know, you couldn't like pornography was like
really looked down upon and you know gays and lesbians had a really difficult time and AIDS was you know, considered like the certain kind of disease and it was just not a good environment for anyone who wasn't like pro-family pro-christian, but now it feels like the pendulum has swung to the other way in the new Moral Majority is actually much more of the left and saying you should speak a word certain way and she think a certain way and you should act a certain way and you know, you're guilty and of you know, all kinds of sins and so on and your identity determines who you are and your capabilities and you should feel bad.
Being privileged or successful what have you so the pendulum is kind of kind of swung the other way and I don't know where it ends up but it's sort of a weird place to be anyway. I didn't mean to turn this into a no ball podcast session. So I apologize and I think I wandered into your room to have a conversation and sort of turned into that. So I'm probably going to quite done exit shortly. But thank you for giving me the pulpit for this brief period of time so now we'll Before You Exit I have I have two questions. I really love my ask you seriously. They lost to quit.
Okay, one question one question. I probably this is one question that and after that you don't have to answer anything. I've seen you follow couple very closely.
I'm just you know, and since you were following I followed him and try to understand what he's trying to preach and at least trying to you know communicate.
How
confident are you in
what he's telling? Because even if what
he's saying is also not falsifiable and you are one of those
person who
would almost always not
believe something just on its face value. So I just wanted to understand a little bit more and
that's all.
Like can't explain couple in this context. He either speaks to you or he doesn't and you just figure it out for yourself. Honestly, I don't know. I think what he's saying is true for him. And I think it is said would most sincerity. I don't think he's for everybody. I think you can get that same stuff. He's talking about from a thousand different sources and I consume all of them, but I found him to be very very insightful. However, when like anybody else when you're putting
Twitter you put on clubhouse you're performing on a stage and a caricature of what you're doing insane comes out. I think if you're interested what couples doing, go read his books. I think that's actually the best way to get a sense of it without letting the ego of a personality sort of manifesting the way what he's talking about. His books are actually really interesting. I think it's blog post really interesting, you know, the problem with being a clubhouse is it just turns performative you're on stage. It's not missing the best venue.
For everybody. Anyway, that's it for me. Thank you. Thank you know.
Thanks a lot of all three.
