How Much of Facebook’s Revenue Is Scam Ads—And Other Chat Worthy Questions

Speaker 1: Rapid fire questions. What percentage of Meta's revenue is knowingly running ads for scams?

Speaker 2: Damn. I'm gonna say knowingly. Knowingly. Gotta be 30%.

Speaker 1: Woah. Oh. You you guessed higher than I did. What exactly did the recently pardoned founder of Binance, Changpeng Zhao, do? And why was he pardoned?

Speaker 2: Money laundering and pardoned because he money laundered for the right people who have power that gets you pardons.

Speaker 1: What happens when AWS, the concrete pad foundation on which the house of the Internet is built, goes down?

Speaker 2: Well, you kind of said it in your question. It goes down.

Speaker 1: It goes down. We have questions. So, Scott, we have to chatty chat.

Speaker 2: We have to chatty chat.

Speaker 1: We've got some in-depth interviews in the hopper for upcoming episodes. But today, we just have, like, a big old pile of strange text stories on the side of our desks that we gotta get through. You ready?

Speaker 2: We're just catching up. We're just catching up with the times.

Speaker 1: Catching up with the times. Let's get into it on this episode of Hacked.

Speaker 2: How you doing, Jordan?

Speaker 1: I'm doing good, man. How are you?

Speaker 2: I am good. Busy, good, happy. Things are good.

Speaker 1: Fulfilled. Fulfilled. Spiritually enlightened. Active.

Speaker 2: Active. Just all of the checkboxes being checked.

Speaker 1: We're truly living our best lives, Scott.

Speaker 2: And sharing it with you, the audience.

Speaker 1: So like I said in the intro, we have some some fun stuff coming up in upcoming episodes. These things take time together. We have a lot of stories, though, that we haven't been able to get to over the last little while, so that's what we're here to do today. It's a good old fashioned chatty chat. We're just gonna catch up. We're gonna gabble what's going on in the world of technology and cybercrime and weird weird tech stuff. If a couple of nerds talk in long form isn't your vibe, we'll we'll catch you in those later ones. But for everyone else, we're just gonna make sure you got some good, good stuff to, I don't know, wash dishes to or commute or whatever it is you're doing this very second you're listening to this.

Speaker 2: One thing I wanna touch on is couple episodes ago, we were talking about, like, OpenAI's AMD investment and kind of, like, the round

Speaker 1: Oh, right into it.

Speaker 2: The circle. The soft edges of of, like, I don't wanna call it a Ponzi scheme, but, like, you know, some kind of market manipulating investment stuff.

Speaker 1: It's the the snake eating its own tail, the aurora bores of of of investments. I hear you. Yeah. I remember talking about that.

Speaker 2: So we talked about that, like, that was what, like, a month ago?

Speaker 3: Yeah. About a month ago. Anything happened since then?

Speaker 2: Yeah. I feel like a week ago, the entire Internet caught on to the fact that this was going on, and, like, so many big YouTubers and other articles started coming out about like, Is OpenAI a Ponzi scheme? There's a bunch of things to talk about in the OpenAI space. I know that they've made a bunch of, we'll call them market gaffes as of late. They claimed that they needed the federal government of the United States to backstop data center development, which then kind of indicated that maybe they didn't have the $1,400,000,000,000 that they've committed to invest and spend, that maybe they didn't actually have that much money and kind of stopped working. It got rocked by it. But, but yeah, it was just really interesting because I felt like we talked about it like a month ago and then just, like, all of a sudden, my whole timeline was, like, people talking about it, like, you know, three weeks later. And I was, like, we were ahead. We scooped it.

Speaker 1: We scooped it. We scooped it. Yeah. I it definitely felt like there was a lot of video essayists, god bless them, just sort of digging into the that shape of the investment. I I don't wanna call it a funnel.

Speaker 2: The funnel.

Speaker 1: What is happening with companies investing into other companies, investing into other companies that are investing into the first one in that, loop, so to speak?

Speaker 2: Cyclical investment cycles. The, not cyclical. This is not a financial. Remember that. Subsequently, if you had been listening about it being a financial, AMD had a massive announcement that they think that the market for data centers is about to just explode, which I feel like everybody kinda knew, but nobody knew that AMD was gonna be a part of it. So AMD shares have had quite the lift.

Speaker 1: I've been buying. I was at Costco.

Speaker 2: Mhmm. Mhmm. As you do.

Speaker 1: Sure. Everyone's familiar with Costco. I don't need to it's always funny. Like, what do you explain in a show like this? I was at Costco and I noticed they sell gold bars at Costco and I was like, do I just, do I just bail on the entire thing and become a weird guy with a duffel bag full of gold bars in the backyard I don't have? Still thinking about it.

Speaker 2: Still thinking about it. So funny enough so they've been selling those gold bars at Costco for, what, three to four years?

Speaker 1: I don't know.

Speaker 2: No. No. So they have. So a few years ago, it was one of my friend's fortieth, and we were trying to plan this kind of elaborate boys golf trip weekend away, like go somewhere nice for his fortieth, but he couldn't make it work. He had work conflicts, so he ended up having to scrap the whole plan. So we were just like, well, why don't we just take all the money and buy them like a gold bar as like a joke for his fortieth birthday? And they were $2,200 at the time. And now, they're like, this is Canadian. Like, 2,200 Canadian at the time. And now I think they're, like, over 6,000. So we should have done that because then that would have paid for this year's golf course.

Speaker 1: Gold going up. The things I don't know.

Speaker 2: And then some.

Speaker 1: The things I don't know. Yeah. K. This first thing that I wanna talk about this episode, we we we teased it in the intro is, Meta and your big swing guess on what percentage of their revenue they knew was coming from ads for fraud.

Speaker 2: Yes. Do you want me to justify my big swing?

Speaker 1: You went big. You actually went high. It's like when someone asks you, you're like, how much did you think? And they they go beyond what it actually was, and it deflates the whole thing. That did happen.

Speaker 3: That that that was the

Speaker 2: I rooted for you. And and that the

Speaker 1: listeners for me.

Speaker 2: So the reason I took a big swing is because Yeah. Yeah. My my baseline of, like, that they know is fraudulent Yeah. Means that they get moderated afterwards. So they take the initial cash. Oh. So so so my 30% is an estimate of if all ads put onto the Meta platform, how many of them get removed for being fraudulent? Because Meta not denying fraudulent ads from going up is to me essentially allowing them because they're still monetizing from them for the first little while.

Speaker 1: Yeah. So this Yeah. This is really interesting. There's some really cool reporting on this, and it's it's somewhere in the middle. We're talking about this pile of internal meta documents that Reuters dug into that showed that the company knowingly earned as much as $16,000,000,000 a year from scam ads, showing users 15,000,000,000 scam ads a day and sometimes, charging the scammers more money to run the ad than simply banning them. While ignoring, I think the number is 96% of scam reports and planning only very, slow tempered reductions into the future to protect that revenue stream.

Speaker 2: So so so I have, I have a knock on to this that drives me nuts, wherein free to play video games, and we're going back to hacking gaming. But they they they don't really want a good anti cheat because they want to talk about daily active users. And most cheaters have hundreds of accounts that they cycle through, So it inflates their daily active user goals. So when they go to share meetings, they're like, Yeah, look at this game we make. It makes billions of dollars. And like the daily active users are X. And they actually don't want to remove cheaters. I have a theory on this, that they don't actually wanna remove cheaters because it will hurt their share price. It will ruin their game, but it but they'll take the they'll take the long term pain for the short term gain of having a really high DAU number.

Speaker 1: We don't wanna kick the person selling drugs in the club out of the club because then the club will be less busy and people won't have easier access to drugs. It's like

Speaker 2: See. And, like and and Meta probably doesn't wanna turn off the $16,000,000,000 in revenue they're making.

Speaker 1: And according to this reporting, the lengths they've gone to to avoid turning it off are quite fascinating.

Speaker 2: No surprise.

Speaker 1: Small upstart journalism enterprise called Reuters, obtained a tranche of internal meta documents from 2021 to 2025. And these documents show that Meta has been knowingly earning, you know, billions of dollars from ads that are four things that are scams, illegal, or banned under its own rules. The internal projection as of late twenty twenty four was that about 10% of all meta revenue, not the ad rep, but all meta revenue was coming from these scam ads, $16,000,000,000, 15,000,000,000 scam ads every single day. That is importantly only paid ads. We're not talking about organic scam activity, things like marketplace or DMs or groups. Those aren't being monetized, and those I think we should think of them as a sort of a different phenomenon. But 10% of all revenue, according to these documents reported by Reuters, for a FAANG company, like, one of the biggest companies in The United States.

Speaker 2: 10%. 10%. Big 10% of gross rev is a huge amount. It's like

Speaker 1: a chunk of your economy. Like, that's a really baffling amount of money.

Speaker 2: But, like, if you think about that as the impact of the share price, like, 10% of gross rev is gonna hit the net income line or the EBITDA line, the earnings line that share prices are valued based off of substantially because the overheads are still there. So you're essentially taking 16,000,000,000 clean out of it.

Speaker 1: Which is gone.

Speaker 2: Yeah. Massive impact to share price, massive impact. So it's like, people I'm sure flirt with this all the time just like they do in video games. It's like Of course. How can we keep the community happy while still keeping the investment community happy? It's tough.

Speaker 1: According to the files, Meta's system like, they they use a system that just has a likelihood of fraud slider somewhere inside of it, and it's only when they hit this, like, 95% threshold that they will ban an ad. If Meta there's, like, a a window up until that point where if they're less certain, but there's still something a little iffy going on here, Meta will raise the price of ads. The internal name for this is called a penalty bid, which means that the effect according to this reporting

Speaker 2: They make more money than

Speaker 1: Meta charges scammers, suspected scammers more, not less increasing that profit, which would, as you kinda brought up, make them more money, but and would be good for the shareholders, but would not be protecting the users of their platforms.

Speaker 2: And and I will note too that this is just this isn't just a meta problem. No. Anybody that watches YouTube

Speaker 1: 100%.

Speaker 2: The amount of deep fake ads that I get served now is and, like, not deepfakes of, like, a certain celebrity. It's, like, national leaders Yeah. Like, the president, the prime minister of Canada. Like, I get deepfakes of all of those. Somehow, those get through the threshold filter. Like, you would you would suspect that AI would capture that and be like, no. This is clearly trying to be Donald Trump. Yes. Like, get out of here.

Speaker 1: Yeah.

Speaker 2: But but they don't.

Speaker 1: No. No. No. To to their credit, trying to figure out whether or not it is Donald Trump hawking a cryptocurrency or a deep fake of Donald Trump hawking a cryptocurrency is a nontrivial task. We're talking about, like, fake ecommerce stuff, counterfeit brands, fake investments, crypto schemes, illegal casinos, banned medical products. At the heart of this is, like, Meta's like, the internally used risk calculus, and the documents kind of show a bit of a deliberate strategy here. The line was do not reduce scam revenue unless regulation forces us. The plan to do that as there has been more legal push to regulate scam ads on these platforms is to be very slowly reducing that revenue over a period of years. They they have a there's a chart allegedly, according to the reporting. I just keep saying that. 10.1% in 2024, which is kind of like the current alleged number, down to 7.3 at the end of this year, down to six, down to 5.8. They're like there's sort of a whittling process so as not to just turn the $16,000,000,000 spigot off all at once. And I would imagine hope that some, I don't know, meta ray bans offset that, loss in revenue.

Speaker 2: What's Meta gonna do here? Like, seeing as this is a straight chatty chat, let's talk about it. Sure. Because, like, they bought Instagram, great buy by them.

Speaker 1: Except Paid

Speaker 2: a billion dollars for what is probably now a trillion dollars

Speaker 1: Worth every penny.

Speaker 2: Yeah. Worth every penny. Yep. WhatsApp Yep. They bought.

Speaker 1: Good good spend.

Speaker 2: Yep. I I feel like they haven't bought really anything since. I think they just bought some 28 year old kid who's gonna lead their AI. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It looks shocked. I read somewhere that they his comp package is something like $14,000,000,000. What? What? And he's being brought, yeah, he's being brought in to run Meta AI.

Speaker 1: I don't know how to Google 14,000,000,000 year old teenager for sale. It's something about they bought the kid. I'm like, I don't know how to Facebook.

Speaker 2: Yeah. I think it it has to do with them taking a massive stake in Scale AI. But really, what they were mostly interested in is Alexander Wang, the founder. So you remember when we talked about Johnny Ives company getting bought by OpenAI and, like, what was that, 6,000,000,000?

Speaker 1: Yep. This is this is one of those.

Speaker 2: Nate, we got one of those going on in the meta side. Just pay $14,000,000,000 for one person. Wow. Yeah. Tell me tell me tell me it's not a bubble by telling me it's a bubble. Yeah. $14,000,000,000.

Speaker 1: That's wild. And maybe they can use all that AI to, the last stat that was in here that I was intrigued by was that meta platforms are tied to allegedly one third of all successful scams in The United States.

Speaker 2: Wow.

Speaker 1: UK regulators pegged it at 54% of payments related scam lit losses related in some way to a meta platform. And you think about, like, WhatsApp, Instagram, DMs

Speaker 2: Totally. All

Speaker 1: the stuff makes sense. That's not included inside of this knowingly ran the ads, but it is just it's an interesting insight into, like, what are what are the surfaces on which people lie on the Internet? It's, it's fascinating. Recording. Yeah. Someone owns them, and his name is Mark. Yeah.

Speaker 2: Well, for every every, like, text message scam I get, you know, hey, can I send you the job offer? Or, hey, you still awake? Or whatever. You know, you get so many of

Speaker 1: them. Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 2: For every one that I get on that platform, I get at least 10 more across every other platform, whether it's an Instagram DM, whether it's a random WhatsApp message. One of the things that I've been finding is when you travel internationally, everybody just uses WhatsApp. Like, you check into a hotel and the concierge is like, hey. Connect on WhatsApp. You need something, hit me up. And I don't trust it because I know so many people that when they get back from vacations get scammed over WhatsApp.

Speaker 1: Yeah. The the amount of spam that comes in over WhatsApp is crazy. But it is, like, it's the It

Speaker 2: is.

Speaker 1: Especially if you have a group of people that are, like, cross platform between, say, Android and iOS, it is, like, the most reliable, like, one of the most reliable messaging apps. Reliable in the sense that people reliably already have it on their phone. There's other options. Text messaging is getting better, but everyone has WhatsApp. It's where the conversations already are.

Speaker 2: I've never I've never figured this out because they paid what, like I can't remember what they paid for WhatsApp, 600,000,000, 460,000,000, something like that. I'd have to look it up, but it's not not consequential to this conversation. The the thing for me is is what is the monetization? Like, I get that they have the audience, but as somebody who's been a WhatsApp user for ten years or whatever it's been, I have no idea how they make money from it. I don't get served ads in it. I don't get it used to be encrypted end to end, so they didn't even get the data of, like, what's going on in the conversations. So I to me, it's always been an interesting one. Like, it's good to own more of the social space, I guess. Sure. That could be an argument. But actually, from a monetization perspective, you know, what are they doing to monetize it?

Speaker 1: Yeah. It's interesting. If WhatsApp wasn't encrypted end to end, I would say it's like a massive

Speaker 2: Data flow.

Speaker 1: Of data for yeah. I was gonna say it's a ton of information to be able to potentially train on or sell off to marketers and stuff. Yeah. That's an interesting question. I don't really know. I don't know why you would buy WhatsApp, but we all use it, but there's no ads in it. It's weird.

Speaker 2: It's weird.

Speaker 1: The thing that I liked about this story was that I'm so I'm reading this Reuters reporting on the meta scam ad ratios and these baffling numbers. And then I I I go over and I go back to my good old Canadian news, and I immediately find a piece of Toronto Star reporting about how they were able to purchase hard drugs off of Facebook ads. Like, it was just this one two punch of, like, 10% of the ads on Facebook are scams and Facebook knows about it allegedly. And then Toronto Star reporters being like, let me explain to you how I bought cocaine off of Facebook. And they did, oxycodone, cocaine. They bought them from websites that they found through meta advertising, did an interact e transfer, and got mailed hard drugs through Canada Post. My favorite part of this story was that the drugs arrived. You can tell there was some, like it almost had drop shipping energy to it because the the the drugs arrived in a bag plainly labeled regular Coke.

Speaker 2: And not the good Coke or the bad guy. Regular.

Speaker 1: You got the regular. Yeah. No. Totally. Executive Coke. You know, this is regular. This is junior sweet Coke. The start found, like, 20 different websites. Did just this one reporter was able to find advertising on Facebook since March of this past year. Kept kinda going for months. Star was flagging the sites after they confirmed that they were real. And Meta was removing some of the ads. Others remained live at the kind of at the time that they reported this story. Yeah. Sponsored posts for cocaine. It was an interesting kinda follow-up story to the, to the scam revenue one.

Speaker 2: I'd be I'd be intrigued to have somebody on from, like, a national police service for an interview about this because I just given how overrun the justice department is with so many things going on in society, I've I've noticed that, like, getting like, they're like, where Jordan lives in Vancouver, you can walk into a store and that is blatantly advertising that is the selling illegal narcotics and buy them and just walk out. And they might get, like, a bylaw fine for every day that they're open, but they easily make that up in the sales that they make. It's and the online websites where they're just bypassing, like, essentially the tax system because you're paying with interact transfers or you're just essentially, Venmo ing people money. They're not tracked. It's I imagine there's there's and who's policing it? And are they policing it? Like, the amount of illegal stuff you can buy from nicotine to magic mushrooms, psilocybin, marijuana, which isn't illegal in Canada anymore.

Speaker 1: Neither is nicotine.

Speaker 2: Yeah. But while it is, it's regulated.

Speaker 1: Regulated.

Speaker 2: And so many of the things that you can buy online are unregulated versions. Same thing goes with marijuana. It's also or cannabis is also regulated. And and the product that you're buying online is often bypasses the regulatory system and is therefore illegal. But, like Mhmm. Doesn't seem like there's a big crackdown on it.

Speaker 1: Kade, are you ready for a a real pivot, but, like, a a solid segue? Yeah. I think I'm pretty proud of this segue.

Speaker 2: K.

Speaker 1: Speaking of cocaine, actor Michael Caine has signed a deal licensing his voice to AI company, Eleven Labs.

Speaker 2: And Matthew McConaughey. And Matthew McConaughey. This is a great story.

Speaker 1: To be clear, I'm not implying Michael Caine has done cocaine. I'm merely referencing the meme that the easiest way to jump start a Michael Caine impersonation is to say Michael Caine, which is great because this is ultimately a story about impersonating Michael Caine.

Speaker 2: I I give you yours. Your father, your flowers. This is exceptional.

Speaker 1: Thank you. You brought me this story, so why don't you explain it?

Speaker 2: So I sent this story to Jordan literally last night as I was laying in bed reading the news before I passed out, same as I do every night.

Speaker 1: Mhmm.

Speaker 2: And, it had broken, I think, yesterday late afternoon. So here's the big twist, is that Matthew McConaughey is an investor in Eleven Labs. So Eleven Labs is one of the first big AI audio voice companies. So you can upload it, like, a like a book, pick a voice that you want, and it will generate you, like, the the audio outputs of somebody reading them in a prompted voice. So you can be like, I want a Dutch woman with a but speaking English, etcetera, etcetera. And, like, Jordan and I both use this tool, and it is very good.

Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, a couple things. People have for sure heard the outputs of this tool on, like, tech

Speaker 2: A billion percent.

Speaker 1: A lot of the times when you hear that kind of because there's two different ways you can use it, and we'll talk about it. But when you hear that kind of, like, video that starts with guy talking like this, and you're like, the rhythm of him talking isn't quite right, but the, like, the sound of the voice is is accurate. A lot of the times that is tools like this, if not explicitly, Eleven Labs. Like, I will recognize voices from Eleven Labs out in the world sometimes.

Speaker 2: But they they

Speaker 1: And that is, as you said, people feeding text into the system and having it generate audio. The other tool the other use case you'll hear sometimes is people feeding spoken word like audio of a person talking and then you can reskin it. So it has different features that it can use, but it is sort of the most popular AI voice generation platform.

Speaker 2: It does also have the ability to upload I think you need a minimum of five minutes of clean signal of someone's voice, and it will actually make a fingerprint of that voice that you can then apply to text copy or or previously recorded audio copy. And that must be what they've done here. So Matthew McConaughey and Michael Caine have both signed a deal licensing their voices to eleven Labs. I haven't logged into the system to see if we can generate something with Matthew McConaughey's voice yet, whether it's currently in the system. But yeah, big, big shift. So the knock on to this is I sent this to you at like 11:00 last night. And in my morning version of my evening thing where I sit and check up on the news stories that happened, there's already massive fan outrage that people are are very, very angry about this.

Speaker 1: Mhmm. Shocker.

Speaker 2: No shock. No. But anyway, it was almost instantaneous. It was just like big news. Michael Caine and Matthew McConaughey. And then literally, the next article was just like, the people are speaking, and they do not like this.

Speaker 1: Before digging into all of the what does it mean of it all, it is just sort of funny to me that these two people because it's like all the headlines just have Michael Caine's face and Matthew McConaughey's faces. Michael, Matthew McConaughey is, as you said, an investor in this company that seems very relevant to all of this. But it is the fact that these two actors are maybe some of the most impersonated people on Earth. Like, to have their voices be the sort of, like, tip of the spear in this whole thing of celebrity voices can now be deep faked sort of with consent of the actor. It is fascinating that they're the two people that most people can do an impersonation of. Yes. Alright. Alright. Alright. And Mike O'Kane are, like, memes. Like, it's like they're it's a joke. So it's really funny that it's the two of them. It would be like, I guess, them and Morgan Freeman maybe would be the the third one that you might expect to see. There are other people in the, they have a name for it. It's their, like, iconic voices. They have a, like, a shortlist of famous people, essentially. And there's some

Speaker 2: Two together I would say

Speaker 1: yeah. Like, more curse stuff in here just given that the people weren't alive

Speaker 2: Babe Ruth.

Speaker 1: When this was con created. Yeah. Robert Oppenheimer. So that hits a little differently, I would say, than, like if Michael Caine wants to get that bag, that's you can think what you want of that, but it is different than Babe Ruth's ancestors deciding that they will get that bag. It's like that that is in some material way different.

Speaker 2: So so when when I originally read the original launch story, it didn't really say anything. It just said that their voices were being added to the system Yeah. To which I thought like, okay, all TikTok brain rot is just now gonna be Matthew McConaughey.

Speaker 1: Oh, God. It sure is.

Speaker 2: But it turns out that they have a request system. So you actually have to request to use it and provide what you're gonna do with it, and themselves has the ability to approve or disapprove it. I doubt that they want that much headache because so many people are gonna request it.

Speaker 1: Yeah. I have to think it's not Michael Caine getting a WhatsApp message being like, hey. Do you wanna be in a TikTok explaining how trains work or whatever it is? Like, it's like it's I have to think is there's some intermediary that Matthew McConaughey isn't just getting lit up with, like, supplement ad requests Totally. Left, right, and center.

Speaker 2: And I also imagine that there will be a surcharge. Like, this will not be a free service. Mhmm. So to use one of these prestigious digital legend voices or something from the marketplace will come with a supplementary cost, which I imagine will be Yeah.

Speaker 1: I would think so. Pretty high. Yeah. And I would imagine that would prevent them it would be unreasonable of me to expect Michael Caine to be deeply tapped into the use of AI in meme culture in short form vertical video. But I would imagine he has a representative, some kind of manager, someone who is responsible an agent who is responsible for that kind of thing. And that creating some sort of a filtration system, some sort of, like, even minute cost to prevent, like, people because a lot of the time, some of these things are being produced by, like, an automated agent system of, like, grab topic, create script, output audio, generate visuals for it, upload directly. And that even you would need some kind of expense, some kind of little box that has to get checked that costs a little bit of money to penalize everyone just making Michael Caine slop. Like, I would hope that there is some sort of filtration system against, a bottomless deluge of Alfred Slop. He played Alfred in Batman.

Speaker 2: He did.

Speaker 1: Yeah. I I I would think, or the bag was just so significant that they just simply don't care.

Speaker 2: Could be.

Speaker 1: Could also be that.

Speaker 2: That AI money.

Speaker 1: That that just crazy amount of AI money. A lot of the coverage on this cited that there are other celebrities, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ashton Kutcher. Like, there's other celebrities that have invested in AI companies, and it I think I'm we're starting to see a path, towards an answer to what do you do with all of this money that you have gathered when the technology reaches. It's like 11 Labs is it could get a little less gravelly. The quality could go up a little bit. There's room for improvement, but it it it functions. What do you do with that money once your project product has reached maturity? And it's like, why don't you just, like, fire blast it at people with big kind of cultural relevance to get their buy in to manufacture that sort of, like, societal consent seems to be, the answer.

Speaker 2: We, I don't know if we've ever mentioned this on the show, but it would have been over a year ago. Oh, yeah. Jordan and I received a very strange email

Speaker 1: from a company This was weird. We never have talked about this.

Speaker 2: No. From a company that I won't name, not even that I remember the name of them. But they were essentially doing the same thing as what Eleven Labs is is doing. They were building personal assistants and building a compendium of voices so that people like Apple could get them for Siri and they were launching a podcast thing. But really about two minutes into the meeting, it became very evident that really what they wanted is licenses to podcasters' voices. And so being from the marketing, advertising, licensing space, we started asking very serious pointed questions about licensing rights, you know, approvals, finances, like, what kind of fee they were planning on paying, whether it was revocable, etcetera, etcetera. Mhmm. And they got very uncomfortable, I would say, and, said that they would send us an email with all the follow-up. Really, at this point, Jordan and I had been recording the call because we were gonna make it into an episode because we thought it was hilarious. And it got really serious and they never got back to us. They ghosted us after that because I think we asked the questions that they were hoping we wouldn't ask. And I think that they were just more excited to have Jordan's beautiful silky voice imprinted into AI for the rest of MIT like like life.

Speaker 1: Yeah. It struck me that they were finding people who had and I by volume, large amounts of recorded voice that were available, and we're hoping that, you know, content creators don't know what data is worth to AI companies. And we're hoping they could throw a a really small amount of money, if I can guess.

Speaker 2: If if any money at all be generous.

Speaker 1: If any money at all at people to try and, you know, see see how many hundreds of hours of content we can get from you. And,

Speaker 2: And then Yeah. Then we'll take

Speaker 1: your voice very cool.

Speaker 2: And then license it to other AI companies that need voices.

Speaker 1: Forever and ever, amen, in perpetuity throughout the universe. Correct. Yeah.

Speaker 2: Anyway, so so we we had that, odd incident, like, a probably a or a year, year and a half ago. We we never got a follow-up from them. We still have the original meeting recorded. We never made an episode out of it, but thought it would be interesting. And I guess this is our roundabout way of talking about it.

Speaker 1: Yeah. It finally came up.

Speaker 2: Labs is now doing this. They're now licensing known voices for people to use.

Speaker 1: So what we could do would be take that recording and, for our own protection, anonymize them by filtering their voice so it's it sounds like Michael Caine. Like, we could we could voice mask that. Like, you know how it used to be you'd pitch the person's voice down in the interview to to make them be anonymous? We could have it be a conversation between us and Matthew McConaughey and us being like, so you're not gonna pay us anything for that? Like and you could listen to the whole thing, but without us, exposing ourselves to legal liability.

Speaker 2: But I feel like we also just described it all, so there's nothing too exciting for us.

Speaker 1: There's not much left.

Speaker 2: There's not much there. Yeah. The, speaking of not much there, the, I love it. I love it. I love it. Thank you. The Internet going down. So this was, like, a month ago.

Speaker 1: Yeah.

Speaker 2: It's not a news story, but we just had to talk about it because it's funny. Not funny. Sad, scary, but also funny.

Speaker 1: Telling, a forewarning, an omen.

Speaker 2: So, Amazon went down, AWS, one set of their servers crashed, was taken down. Funny enough, it was caused by two threads in a system trying to write to a DNS entry at the same time, which just left the DNS entry blank apparently, and boom, AWS. A big chunk of it goes down, a big chunk of the Internet goes down. It was kind of like a blackout day on the Internet where I can't remember every service that was impacted, but it was substantial. Yeah. All because they didn't put like a mutex in the code to protect multi threaded applications from trying to write the same piece of data over and over at the same time. And pretty basic thing to do if you write multithreaded code, and they didn't do it. And then it took down a big chunk of the Internet. So I imagine they fixed that since then.

Speaker 1: For anyone that doesn't know, AWS, Amazon Web Services is like Amazon's, cloud computing platform. It is in addition to ecommerce, like, the the I don't know if it's the golden egg or the golden goose. It is a money printer. It basically lets people and companies rent computing power, storage, databases, all the back end of their websites. They can rent it from Amazon, and then it's distributed around the there's a bunch of benefits to it. It's like sort of infrastructure on demand.

Speaker 2: The cloud.

Speaker 1: It's the cloud. It's the cloud. Netflix, Twitch, Disney plus, Etsy, Shopify, Slack, Reddit. Like, just name a website.

Speaker 2: Our service.

Speaker 1: Our service. It is why I described it in the intro sort of concrete foundation on which the house of the Internet is built. It is essential. Help me understand this error because you described it as like a real it's not simple, but there's the sense of like, oh, that's what took it down. Like, help me understand that.

Speaker 2: Sure. So you've got two systems looking and reading and writing records in the domain system at the same time. Two of these systems at the exact same moment try to write the same record. Something in programming called a mutex, a mutual exclusion, which is essentially a lock. If somebody gets to something first and says, I'm going to edit this, they lock it so that nobody else can edit it. And then they make the edit, they take the lock off and they go about their business. The next system You

Speaker 1: don't get conflicts.

Speaker 2: Yes. The next system's waiting for the lock to go away. The lock gets popped. They go in, they make their edit. They lock it, they make their edit, they pop the lock, and they go away. Very, very basic. Yeah. Like if you read any kind of multi threaded programming, mutexes are essential. The that didn't occur here. So they had

Speaker 1: They didn't.

Speaker 2: They didn't. So two systems were trying to write to the same DNS record and essentially overran each other, leading to it just being left blank to the best of my knowledge, which then caused the massive outage. So when I read this, I was like, okay. Like, Amazon AWS was the original foundation of the cloud, like, all the Internet services. AWS was first to market largely, very dependent on, very integral and integrated into lots of massive Forbes, Fortune 500 companies. Like, they've just been they were the gold standard forever. Microsoft Azure. There's a bunch of other platforms now that have come out in the tail end of them. So when they had their big outage, I was like, we're going back to the the hack stock market show. I was like, okay. Now that they've shown that they're vulnerable to outages and what the cost of those outages are, Every major company currently has a bunch of IT people writing up risk assessments and are looking to be like, how do we hedge it so that if one of our if one of our cloud providers goes down, we don't go down.

Speaker 1: Right.

Speaker 2: So I assumed a lot of big companies are about to start a mitigation strategy of hedging across multiple cloud providers so that if one does go down, like an AWS, they fall back to Microsoft Azure or something like that. And then within a few days, Microsoft had a massive Azure outage, almost the exact same. It wasn't the same cause, but essentially, Microsoft services across Azure started to go down. And they went down for about two

Speaker 1: hours. Funny.

Speaker 2: And I was like, oh my god. Is anybody safe from this? So

Speaker 1: It's funny. It's like my sense of AWS and probably Azure to an extent is, like, that they are they're they're trying to be the one stop shop for cloud computing. It's like if you can think of a a tacked on thing that you might have to go to a third party for, they they've brought that into their feature set in this idea that the one feature they would never bring in is redundancy that kicks you over to one of their competitors. It's like the one thing they would never wanna bring in house is the ability to go like, well, if we mess up, it'll go over here. It's like you'd I just I can't imagine they would ever, intentionally funnel traffic over to Microsoft and vice vice versa. In spite of the fact that that seems like it would be extremely useful in a situation like this as some kind of turnkey solution for, like and if you're on AWS and you subscribe to, like, a little bit of a redundancy over here with Azure, In the event of something, it gets, boop, like, flipped over almost like a train track switching system.

Speaker 2: It goes will fall back onto Google Exactly. Or, like, Microsoft. So the and that's especially relevant if you're something like an airline because Jesus. Yeah. So, like, a lot of these cloud services, they're they're they're not just, like, websites and online stuff. They power everything now. So booking systems, you know, I'm sure, like, the FAA uses them for, like, flight scheduling systems, etcetera. They're everywhere. So essential services throughout the country. Alaskan Airlines actually did go down when the Microsoft Azure outage happened. So I think the amount of like, the first thing that jumped into my mind, like, if I was the CIO of these companies, Monday morning, I'm like, okay, what is our mitigation strategy?

Speaker 1: Interesting.

Speaker 2: And then Microsoft goes down, so you're like, okay, is our mitigation strategy going to be planned for at least two of these things going down? So it's like, okay. Maybe maybe we need some AWS, some Azure, some Google Cloud, some big big news when it happened, obviously.

Speaker 1: Ignoring like, Amazon, obviously, was effective. Amazon is built on AWS. It was affected by the Shopify, Instacart, Slack, Discord, Zoom, Twitch, Reddit, Pinterest, LinkedIn, Netflix, Disney. I'm not just listing people that are part of AWS. I'm listing people that have, according to reporting, been affected by this outage, UPS, FedEx. There was an estimate by a analytics firm that pegged it. It's like the the sort of losses during this window is being, like, kind of creeping up towards a half $1,000,000,000, just like a a power outage at this scale, essentially, of, like, Internet infrastructure. It's potentially being that high. It's a it's a fascinating story, and it's interesting that these kinds of hundreds of million dollar implying outages just are sort of happening all the time. It's like like you said, AWS goes down, and then Azure does shortly after. It's just sort of a feature at this point.

Speaker 2: It's so interesting. Well, the the Microsoft one was due to a global configuration change, apparently, that applied to all of the containers, like all of the the client clouds, which which then reminded me of, the CrowdStrike incident because that was kinda what happened with CrowdStrike, which, again, took down massive amounts of, you know, dependent systems, airports, flight things, etcetera, banks. So so, yeah, it's you know, we are so reliant on technology now that any of these small things, just cause such a massive impact that I think that I think that there's gonna be no way for big companies and big services and government departments to get away from looking at a hedged leveraged, like, usage of clouds.

Speaker 1: You

Speaker 2: there's no longer gonna be a single provider. There's probably a massive opportunity right now for somebody to come out with a product that essentially is a cloud that sits above the clouds and has redundancies.

Speaker 1: And moves your stuff over to the next one. Sure.

Speaker 2: It's like if you're part of hacked cloud. Yeah. Right. We use all the clouds underneath. And if one of them goes down, the service will never be disrupted because we'll just fail over to one of the other clouds.

Speaker 1: It is the kind of thing, though, that it's like and then what happens when hacked cloud goes down? Like, it's you you've you've

Speaker 2: Then it's all over.

Speaker 1: That it's truly all over. We've truly lost. I looked this up. It looks like there was an AWS outage in 2021 that was, what, eight hours. This one was about fifteen, so, like, almost double. So it looks like every two to three years, we get sort of just a a rough doubling because the previous one to that, was again, I think four years prior and it was four hours. So we literally every three to four years, it just doubles in duration. It seems like if we go back. So next one, we should expect it to be in 2029, and it'll be thirty hours long, which honestly speaks to the redundancy of how quickly they were able to get this thing back up and running.

Speaker 2: I don't have a transition for this, so I'm just gonna say it. Another big piece of news that broke in the last couple of months that we really haven't talked about on the show or off the show was all of the sports gambling crackdowns that the FBI has done. And the reason I bring this up, and it really has nothing to do with hacked, except for there was one piece of it that is kind of interesting.

Speaker 1: K.

Speaker 2: So so some of the people that were indicted in this crackdown on sports betting, which largely was related to, like, NBA players, prop bets, like, situational bets inside games. So people were kind of rigging it and their friends were betting, etcetera, etcetera. Even rolled all the way up to Portland Trail Blazers head coach has been allegedly charged with throwing games. So essentially putting out fielding like a b squad instead of an a squad so that he can, like, decide the game outcomes better and having that bet on. But the same person, Chauncey Billups, hall of famer, and a and a former NBA player, Damon Jones, were also arrested, allegedly involved in mafia poker games. So they were bringing in a lot of these high earning, you know, stars, people with lots of money, and bringing them into poker games, high stakes poker games that they were then using hacked card counters. Like, if you've ever been to a casino, there's, like, shuffling machines. Yeah. Yeah. They they had figured out how to tap into the cameras inside of them and were literally getting, like, full insight into what the card ordering was. So they knew what cards everybody had in the back of the room. Wait. Yes. The

Speaker 1: organized criminals Yes.

Speaker 2: The mafia.

Speaker 1: Into the the mafia, the mob, had hacked into the card count the the shuffling machines at, like, real casinos. These aren't underground card

Speaker 2: games. No. No. These are underground card games.

Speaker 1: Okay. So there's underground card games. Should I get the shape of this in my head?

Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 1: And the shufflers and organized criminals hacked into the the shuffling machines.

Speaker 2: Correct.

Speaker 1: And at what point do, athletes get involved? Why are athletes involved? I think I think

Speaker 2: So there was a big crackdown from the FBI on athletes around sports gambling. Okay. Doctor. But then a few of the people that they were cracking down on for like throwing games, like sports betting has long since compromised the purity of sport. Right? K. Like like like the second you can gamble on something, rigging games. You know, there's been, referees and umpires that have been convicted of this. There's been players that get convicted of it, coaches. And usually, it's at lower leagues. Like like, the worst thing you can do is open a betting app and start betting on, like, day of three football in the in the Europe. Because there's a good chance that, like, somebody who's, you know, making $45,000 a year to be the coach of a soccer team in Venezuela or something is has a higher likelihood to be persuaded to rig the game

Speaker 1: Got it.

Speaker 2: Than somebody who's, you know, making $250,000,000 a year like Cristiano Ronaldo. So this one was a big deal because it actually impacted real leagues. Like, the NBA was a large makeup of the people that got, allegedly charged or charged with alleged crimes. Mhmm. But the big the big the hacked kick on this for me was the fact that Chauncey Billups and Damon Jones, both one an active coach in the NBA and one a former player, were essentially bringing people into mafia run high stakes poker games. And those games were rigged because they had hacked the Deckmate two automatic shufflers by jacking into the USB service ports on them

Speaker 1: k. I got it.

Speaker 2: Accessing the cameras. And so they would essentially know The order of the cards would be texted or sent to, like, their phones. So they would just know what everybody had.

Speaker 1: Oh, so it wasn't k. So that was the last piece of this that was missing. The games are run by the mob. Correct. And the mob has hacked their their own shuffling machines.

Speaker 2: Correct.

Speaker 1: And they're not just using that to presumably buys towards the house, which is them, but also towards this small selection of certain players, allegedly these athletes.

Speaker 2: Yes. So in poker, there really isn't a house. No. No. So kind of. You kinda got it wrong. So the house gets a rake usually in high stakes poker. So poker is like everybody at the table versus everybody at the table. The house doesn't really play. The house the house just deals, but the house takes a rake on the pot size usually if it's like a like a real casino. They were bringing in high net worth individuals, pro pro sports players, people people that have a lot of disposable income into these high stakes poker games. And then they were essentially fleecing them because they already knew what the cards were. So they knew what you had. So when you're betting and raising and calling and and and playing your poker game, they're seeing right through you. They already know what you have down. So I did see some other coverage about this that they might have been using, like, glasses to show them literally what everybody had. So these deckmates would would send a list of the cards that came out that would be transposed across the deal, and they would actually know what everybody had at the same time. But, yeah, essentially, the mob was paying these guys a kicker to bring people into these rigged poker games so that they could fleece them and take millions of dollars off of them.

Speaker 1: Hacked shuffling machines. Yeah. I was I couldn't yeah. Hacked. I couldn't tell. I was like, I was trying to figure out if it was that they had hacked someone else's shuffling machine, but this makes much more sense. It was their own game, and the only way you can extract money out of other players is if you have a player is to beat them and that you have a player that is essentially on your side.

Speaker 2: Yeah. You

Speaker 1: need that alignment between at least one of the players and the people who are compromising the shuffling in order for this thing to kick off any money. You need a winner that's gonna be in on it, essentially.

Speaker 2: Yeah. Big big deal. Wild. FBI cracked down on it. Bunch of arrests. Big big catastrophic shape through the entire gambling and sports industry because I think that they feel that there's gonna be some changes regulatory side coming. The only thing that's really associated with cybercrime, the rest of it's just human crime. The only thing that was associated was this piece, this, this mafia run poker games with with essentially hacked card dealing.

Speaker 1: And there weren't even smart glasses involved in it. What do you think of it as a consumer tech tangent? The the the Ray Ban meta, the the the new gen that have the wave table display right in them that you look at. What do you what do you think of those? Because I know you've been intrigued by this product before.

Speaker 2: Yeah. The Ray Bans, I'm less intrigued by. The Google XR glasses, I'm gonna be much more inclined to be interested in. I think the having the display in the makes sense, I'm actually truthfully, the first time I went into a store and tried on the mid Ray Bans the first time, I was expecting to see a display.

Speaker 1: Yeah. Sure.

Speaker 2: And the fact that there was not a display, I was like, oh, this is not a product for me.

Speaker 1: Like, I don't Interesting.

Speaker 2: For somebody that shoots like, I'll go on, like, a like a three week vacation and take, like, four photos. And usually, it's of, like, a parking stall number, a menu that I need to show somebody, and something else. Like, I'm not somebody who's constantly looking to capture and create content for the Internet.

Speaker 1: Right.

Speaker 2: And I think that's who this product's for. It's just not for me.

Speaker 1: Interesting. Yeah. Because my take on it was that the only thing I think that they've seen the popularity of the basic version of Meta Ray Bans, which is just a pair of glasses with headphones in the arms and cameras pointed forward. And they've gone, this will replace the phone, the more phone functionality we can put into it. And there's a little part of me that's like, people might just like having a camera in their glasses. Like, I there's a signal noise thing going on where I'm like, oh, I I'm worried you might think this is what computing will be. I was like, maybe. But I think the only signal you really truly have is that people love to be able to post to Instagram really, really effectively, and being able to click on their glasses to take a photo is is is pretty cool. So I'm curious to see, curious to see where it goes.

Speaker 2: I I think for me, this makes way more sense, you know, with the AI kind of revolution Mhmm. Air quoting. Sure. But as AI is getting better, interpretive, like, image based interpretation, so, like, if I can give an image to an AI, it could tell me about it. That process is gonna be cooked into these things at some point. So whatever I'm looking at through that camera, the little screen is gonna be feeding me details or I'm gonna hear a little voice asking me if I wanna know more about it. Hey. You know, you walk by a cafe in Tokyo and you'll look at it. It'll just be like, oh, did you know that this is one of the highest rated coffee shops in all of Japan for foreigners on to travel? It's like, I think we're going that direction. And and truthfully for me, that is more of the direction that I'd be interested in. Like, just having a camera that's accessible in my eyes, very low output for me as I'm not one of those people. I know there are those people. I know a lot of people that I fly fish with wear Meta Ray Bans because when you catch a fish, they can just say record, and then they get a whole video of catching the fish and stuff without having to really disrupt anything else. But that's just not part of my processes. I'm more information focused, and glasses with the display in them and the ability to talk to me, I'd be much more inclined to get.

Speaker 1: A few episodes ago, we talked about, a product called Cluely, which is, like, live AI assistant for meetings. It's as off to the side. It's listening to what's being said, and it's it's feeding that kind of, like, a large language model produced prompt for what you could maybe say next. When it was initially announced, it was sort of presented as this idea that, like, cheating like, what previously had been considered cheating would no longer be considered cheating, and you could just sort of pair it what a chatbot says, and that's the future. I have noticed that their marketing has pivoted hard away from lying is the future and it's sort of reframed around being much more of like a sort of LinkedIn esque productivity tool. But let's put that to the side, that vindication to the side. I could see this type of small screen having applications for a certain kind of person who, I guess, feels the need to have chat g p t telling them what to say all of the time Mhmm. You could theoretically, in the same way that people were able to, basically jailbreak gen one meta ray bans to do face facial analysis on people out in the world and feed information about people to a phone. Now you've put that screen right in front of the eye in a way that the person doesn't even need to look down. So the I think that this technology is a platform for feeding people information surreptitiously Totally. Is going to be extremely powerful. Like, it's icky, but the, like, social engineering implications of being able to, like, read information about a person on a screen that you don't have to look down at and they maybe don't know you're looking at is like, oh, people are gonna get up to some some stuff with that. That's, I'm sure we'll be talking about it.

Speaker 2: Yeah. That was clearly one point o. I feel like that was, like, the the the vision that they foresaw. And I think that vision is still very much alive. I think I think that vision

Speaker 1: is coming. This is the technical infrastructure for that vision. For sure.

Speaker 2: Yeah. The Yeah. I I a friend of mine who has a public job speaks at press conferences to journalists and gets asked questions, has a set of glasses that have a screen in them, and can receive text messages from his assistants and policy people. So if he gets asked or they get asked a question while in front of a press conference and he doesn't know the answer, I should quit saying saying he and say they, but it's a he obviously via

Speaker 1: Yeah. I was gonna say you ripped that band aid off, dude. I don't know if I can edit that one out.

Speaker 2: The, if if if he doesn't know the answer, somebody can quickly text it to him and it will flash up on his display and his glasses so he so they can accurate information. Wow. I think we're already doing that and that's with a pretty old product, I would say. It has an app that runs on their phone, connects Bluetooth to the glasses, where something like a Google XR, a Meta Ray Ban AI, like, whatever the next next gen of this stuff is. Like, I think Google's XR glasses are meant to be, like, q '1 of next year.

Speaker 1: Interesting.

Speaker 2: And then the thing about the Google AR glasses that make me a bit uncomfortable is that I think they're constantly monitoring your environment. They know everything about what's around you. Because in the in the presentation that they gave when they launched them in Vancouver I think it was Vancouver. She had put, like, a key card on a on a bookcase and then went about her presentation and then was like, hey, Google. Where's my key card? Man. And she's like, oh, it's on the third third shelf of this bookcase near the book called this, and it's like, okay.

Speaker 1: Like It's just sort of filming all of the time.

Speaker 2: She's kind of always there.

Speaker 1: Yeah. If you feel good about that and you want that, it it will definitely be a product that you can you can get in the very near future, if not now. I don't know how often Meta Ray ban my sense is that Meta Ray bans, provide, like, a light based UI. A a light goes off if you start filming, but I I am curious, and I would like to learn more about whether or not that light goes on, whether or not the camera is active in any way.

Speaker 2: I think I I think they're gonna have to do it for the first couple of years.

Speaker 1: You know

Speaker 2: what I'm saying? Like, I think that people will be very uncomfortable with it. But then as we get more comfortable with it, they'll just take the light away. Like, that that would be my my futurist expectation. That would

Speaker 1: be a bummer to be a person that just needs glasses as a growing suspicion that everyone wearing glasses is recording you. It's like that seems almost unfair to me to just be like, oh, it's like, oh, then we'll just sort of assume that if someone has glasses on, they're, potentially surreptitiously filming other people. It's like

Speaker 2: And listening to everything being said.

Speaker 1: And listening to everything being said and and feeding it off to a server somewhere. And it's like, oh, but that form factor is just a a medical device for a lot of people. That doesn't seem great.

Speaker 2: You're talking about talking to somebody that's worn that medical device since I was very small.

Speaker 1: I was like, I'm I'm aware of the fact that I'm talking to you, and you're wearing glasses right now. It's like, that's just that's gonna be a shift, if these things do genuinely take off and we reach a point where the camera is firing and there isn't any kind of, like, user feedback.

Speaker 2: Speaking of shifts.

Speaker 1: Speaking of, Michael

Speaker 2: Remember how we always talk about how Apple's just so behind in the AI game?

Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Pretty famously right now.

Speaker 2: Pretty famously. Yeah. Except they just contracted Google for a billion dollars a year to provide them with their own custom models and to redevelop Siri to actually be useful.

Speaker 1: Wow.

Speaker 2: And I can't help but think that it's absolutely brilliant.

Speaker 1: It's it feels like it's absolutely brilliant in a couple of different directions. It seems like it's very smart because you you're gonna wanna get some generative you're gonna wanna better intelligence inside of your smash hit smartphone, and they seem to be struggling with doing that on their own. So getting Google's in there, I see the value in that. In a pure business case, giving a billion dollars to a company to develop you AI that is giving you about $20,000,000,000 a year to be the default search is extremely shrewd. It's kinda it's just sort of change. It's like the cashier giving you change back, but you get, an artificial intelligence out.

Speaker 2: Of it. It's called a credit memo in business.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 2: There you go. I know we owe you 20,000,000,000, but here's a billion off of it. Yeah. And I'm sure it will be more than that at the end of the day. But the thing that makes it brilliant for me is that Apple knew that they were way behind. So they essentially got to pick a winner and just pay for somebody that knows what they're doing to do it well. And the craziest part of this is that Google Android is selling the Gemini AI integration so hard. It is like a value proposition differentiator for them. And now they're just going to give it to Apple. They're all of the the product differentiation between Android and iOS or, I guess, OS 26 or whatever it's called now, they're gonna just give away because now they're gonna integrate Google Gemini essentially fully, I would assume, fully into the iOS suite.

Speaker 1: It they also seem like a good option. And, again, this is getting technical in a way that is above my head. But I know that when Apple rolled out Apple Intelligence, they talked a lot about I think they called secure enclave, which is just essentially an encryption process that allows processes to run on a server the same way a lot of other companies do, but in a way that is more meaningfully encrypted in its connection between the server and the end device. And then I think about what Google has been really good at with AI, which isn't just sort of the largest models, but it's those mini models, those leaner, faster running models that still get most of the utility of the big ones. I think of a secure encrypted connection running something on a server, and then you have the option to run a model that is the lightest, leanest, most effective kind of one out there. It's like that. That starts to paint a picture of how this might work.

Speaker 2: Well, totally. And the the fact that they're going with Google, who have already struggled and gotten through most of the roadblocks about deploying AI onto cell phones, ways of integrating it, hurdles they had to cross. You know, they've got they've probably got a billion dollars in knowledge that Apple's just gonna get for free.

Speaker 1: I know that there was also talk of them working with I can't remember if it was perplexity or

Speaker 2: an I

Speaker 1: think it was anthropic. Anthropic. Yeah. Yeah. As being a potential other, you know, group that could be running this back end for a better Siri. And it's like, you know what Anthropic just doesn't have? A mobile operating system that they've already got AI running on. Totally. It's like it's to your point. It's like they they simply must have solved a bunch of those we in the weeds type problems that come with weaving this into a smartphone. Yeah. It's it's sort of acquiescing some ground to Google a little bit, but they're already in bed together. They already have such a relationship like we talked about. Tens of billions of dollars a year for that search. They're already working together. I I get how you get

Speaker 2: here. I also read on Bloomberg that Anthropic wanted 1,500,000,000 per year, where Google just wanted a billion.

Speaker 1: Oh. So So they undersold them.

Speaker 2: See, I see. Exactly. So you're getting all the knowledge and paying 30 or 66% the price that you would have went if you went with Anthropic.

Speaker 1: So I don't know anything about Scale AI, which to go back to the Mark Zuckerberg acquihiring companies type thing. Mhmm. Mhmm. But I kinda gotta give it to Apple on this one that, like, Facebook spent $14,000,000,000 on Scale AI to sort of just do AI good and better. And, like, Apple spent a billion dollars to make Siri be good. I'm like, what? I I have to I don't know. Feels like Apple got a deal there.

Speaker 2: Yeah. Scale AI is a data company.

Speaker 1: K.

Speaker 2: So I think their first big product I'm not sure what they've expanded into, but their first big product was that they were, like, a data repository of pre cleansed index data that a lot of people use to train the world's models. So like a lot of all the big model generative companies, the company's training models are licensing data from Scale AI.

Speaker 1: Okay. Interesting.

Speaker 2: So the the founder of it must be very impressive. I'm sure that the company itself is worth is very impressive as well, but a $14,000,000,000 acquihire is next level.

Speaker 1: Yeah. And as part of the so they have a 49% stake in the data labeling company, which isn't even like, that company can still license its data to other people because that's sort of where I was going is do you do this in order to prevent them from letting other new entrants train on that information? And it's like you haven't they could still technically do that.

Speaker 2: Well, but they They're

Speaker 1: probably less inclined to because you gave them $14,000,000,000. If that doesn't buy goodwill, I don't know what does.

Speaker 2: Well, the other thing is too is, like, how old is Scale AI? So this company is probably I would say, it's nine years old. But I think it started as a different company than what it became. Right. So anyway, nine years it took a a startup to grow into that. If it was Google or Apple looking to build a competitive dataset to train models on or anthropic, I'm sure they would do it in months. Wow. That would be my thought anyways. Like, if that became a mission critical thing where, like, all of a sudden, Meta was like, you can't use any of Scales' data, Like, you have to find your own data to train. I'm sure they would get to it as that is their, like, core business offering is these models trained on good information.

Speaker 1: It is fascinating that you can make a company worth 14 bill they didn't make the data. No. They collected it, which is the nice verb, and labeled it. Starting some new isn't just hard. It can be downright terrifying. You put a lot of work into a thing. You're not entirely sure it's gonna work out. You're taking a huge leap of faith. I've started a few things. Now I know I was right for believing in, you know, the idea, the product, despite all of those fears and hesitations. But boy, does it sure help when you have a partner like Shopify on your side. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in The US. From household names like, well, hacked podcasts merch, to brands just getting started. You can get started with your own design studio with hundreds of ready to use templates. Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand style. Did I mention that that iconic purple shop pay button that's used by millions of businesses around the world? I don't know why I wouldn't. I should. It's why Shopify has the best converting checkout on the planet. It also helps boost conversions, meaning less carts, sort of getting abandoned in the parking lot, and more sales for you. It's time to turn those what ifs into sign up for your $1 per month trial at shopify.com/hacked. Go to shopify.com/hacked. One more time, that's shopify.com/act.

Speaker 4: This Father's Day, do more with dad and spend less with low prices guaranteed at the Home Depot. Get him fired up with a new grill and accessories, like the next grill five burner for just $299 so you can spend more time together while he becomes the grill master he was always meant to be. Or build memories with savings on top brand power tools so you can tackle projects side by side. Give more and do more together this Father's Day with help from The Home Depot. Exclusions applies to homedepot.com/ price match for details.

Speaker 5: Whatever your thing, it could be anything. Canva helps you make that thing a thing. Canva is a simple online tool thing. It's a way to design with our magic AI tool things. You can social media your thing, generate images or videos of your thing, make decks or presentations to show your thing. Whatever needs to be done for your thing, Canva can make it an even better and bigger thing. Canva, the thing that makes anything a thing.

Speaker 2: Study

Speaker 3: and play. Come together

Speaker 1: on a

Speaker 3: Windows 11 PC. And for a limited time, college students get the best

Speaker 1: of both worlds.

Speaker 3: Get the Unreal College Seal, everything you need to study and play with select Windows 11 PCs. Eligible students get a year of Microsoft three sixty five premium and a year of Xbox Game Pass Ultimate with a custom color Xbox wireless controller. Learn more at windows.com/studentoffer. Law supplies last. Ends June 30. Terms at aka.ms/collegepc.

Speaker 1: Is there

Speaker 2: anything that we need to catch up on?

Speaker 1: House robots?

Speaker 2: Did you

Speaker 1: follow that story?

Speaker 2: No. But I'll I'll talk about the knock on to it, the Elon Musk compensation package. Yeah. Sure. I feel I feel like that's the real story about house robots. So I I read an article the other day that had the potential market size for humanoid robots. It's something like a $144,000,000,000,000 So Elon, their humanoid robot, of which the name is escaping me right now, it is very popular. Optimus. Optimus. Thank you. They're all in. So now that Elon Musk's trillion dollar comp pack has been signed off, they are apparently starting and breaking ground on building an Optimus factory in Texas. So they're about to start cranking out humanoid robots.

Speaker 1: Cool. The reason I brought it up was about a company called Neo. We'll skim past this because I do wanna talk about that, which has started selling a $20,000 USD humanoid robot. The story about this was that the robot, you know, you would think would be sort of purely artificially intelligence driven. It seems though as though this robot, at least in its initial stage stages is going to be human piloted. Mhmm. So when you purchase this product, it's gonna come into your house. It's full of sensors. It's a robot. But when you ask it to, like, do your laundry, there will it would seem be a person that sort of remote tethers in and with a VR, you know, headset and controllers controls the robot and, like, has it do laundry stuff for you. And that's just a product you can buy. Godspeed. Then there's the the the Tesla robot of it all.

Speaker 2: Let's let's let's hang on your story for a second. I made I made the quick jump to the Tesla robot.

Speaker 1: Sure. Sure.

Speaker 2: So if you were to have domestic staff, call that like a cleaner, cook.

Speaker 1: K.

Speaker 2: This weird human controlled robot in your house is kind of the same, except for the fact that you don't get to see the person on the other side. Yep. I I don't know anybody that I think that would be comfortable with that arrangement.

Speaker 1: No. Because of, how uncomfortable it is. Like, you chose the word right, my guy. It's deeply uncomfortable to be like, I want someone to clean up after me, but I'm so uncomfortable with the idea of having to see their human form that I will hire a robot visage for them to embody. And then very like, just watching the video of it, like, trying with its, like, little janky robot hands to, like, pick up a sock, and you can tell there's another person on the far side of it. Like, have you ever do you know games like baby steps? Like, those awkward physics games where you're trying to control a person? It's like that, but it's a real robot in your house. And they're just, like, trying to focus so hard to pick up the cup and put it in the dishwasher. And it's like, if you want a house cleaner and you cannot stand the idea of it being a human and you are okay with it taking eight times longer and having cameras in your house, here you go.

Speaker 2: Have at her. Oh, man. K. It's good stuff. Let's jump to the real robot stories.

Speaker 1: The real robot story, the optimists, the trillion dollar, compensation. $100,100 and

Speaker 2: $140,000,000,000,000 market.

Speaker 1: Let's talk about something not controversial. Elon Musk's many enterprises.

Speaker 2: Well, he's down. He's down. So here's the thing is now that he's now that he's been essentially I don't know what you'd call it. He signed the world's largest compensation deal ever, I would assume.

Speaker 1: It's gotta be up there. It's an unfathomable amount of money.

Speaker 2: Yeah. Granted, the the the comp pack is contingent on him reaching a number of organizational milestones. So it's not just like he became a trillionaire, but if he can turn Tesla into, like, an $8,000,000,000,000 company, then he becomes a trillionaire. And you know what? I actually don't have a big beef with this compact because he's worth, like, what, $300,000,000,000.

Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm so far beyond finding all of these numbers, like, offensive to me as a human being that it's like, well, this is just sort of a worse it's like another drop in the bucket.

Speaker 2: Yeah. And the reality for me is is if they said no to his Compaq, he probably just would have gracefully exited Tesla and then turned XAI into the humanoid robot company and then taken all of the trillions. So essentially, in this way, he's providing this market does manifest and it does become a real thing and Optimus does become a tangible product. He's at least sharing that with the existing investors in Tesla. And it's like I'm not super mad about that because he is super rich and could have just gone off, raised the money. The man has a direct line to, like, the Saudi investment fund. If he needed cash, he coulda got it.

Speaker 1: I'm sure his departure would have been graceful.

Speaker 2: I'm sure.

Speaker 1: And not the sloppiest thing ever. Yeah. It's so I'm I've never done fundamental analysis on Tesla nor would anyone want me to. I can't tell you if these I can't tell you if these, like, specific pay tiers are reasonable, if they're overly broad, if they're offensive. I know there's been really considerable push pushback. Like, the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund was like, this is insane. Like, there there was a lot of far better informed resistance to this. It also went through. I am not the person to provide commentary on that. Yeah. I'm not a Tesla stockholder. I'm not on the board of Tesla. I don't beyond finding the idea that his labor is worth this just personally, like, just not true, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm reminded of the quote that he said, which was, like, the the thing that this hinged on, and you you alluded to this of, like, if you don't give me a trillion dollars, I'm gonna take my toys and go over to XAI. And the quote was, I just don't feel comfortable, like, building a robot army here and then being ousted because of, you know, internal politics. I don't remember where the rest of the quote goes. Yeah. And that, to me, feels like you're hinging this whole thing on, like, well, how do we feel about this man overseeing a robot army? Because that's that's what this is, is pay me the money so I'll build the robot army here for you, and I'll oversee it here. Otherwise, I'll go do it. And it's like the question that oversees both those options is how do we feel about one man controlling a robot army. Sure.

Speaker 2: And This is the premise for

Speaker 1: a movie. Many films. A lot of science

Speaker 2: fiction have this premise.

Speaker 1: And and what happens when you give a person this much an individual person this much power? I don't tend to think that a ton of power is great for human beings. The person that gets it, let alone the people over which they have the power. I'm reminded of Grokipedia. Are you familiar with Grokipedia?

Speaker 2: I have never looked at it, but I know it exists.

Speaker 1: You know it exists.

Speaker 2: I feel like you have, something you wanna say about it, and I'm excited to hear it because I've literally read nothing about Grokipedia. So so Grokipedia,

Speaker 1: this is just like a silly, tangent way of understanding all of this and how do we think about a person overseeing a company that has, you know, you know, robots and the word army, which I didn't use. He did. Crocopedia is an AI generated, like, online encyclopedia. It was developed by XAI, his other company. It came out last month. It's intended as, like, a rival to Wikipedia. It this was in response to Elon Musk's perceived biases of Wikipedia.

Speaker 2: I think this It is. I'm just gonna jump in. They're they're I think that the biases on Wikipedia are more than just Elon Musk. I think there's a substantial amount of the Internet that thinks that the Wikipedia is biased.

Speaker 1: Well, we can we can definitely talk about that. It has hundreds of thousands of authors. And

Speaker 2: Totally.

Speaker 1: And so Grokipedia is created by Grok, the large language model owned by Xi. It this is according to a bunch of reporting. It would seem that a lot of the articles are derived from Wikipedia, redrafted by Grok, with several entries seemingly reflecting Musk aligned viewpoints and ideological framing.

Speaker 2: Well, I think we previously had a conversation about how Grok was trained to look at Elon Musk's political ideologies for answers.

Speaker 1: This is well documented. To your point, Wikipedia, a far from infallible enterprise, but by its very structure, a product of hundreds of thousands of people, like, trying to hash out, and you can just read the logs Correct. Something close to the truth. Going back and forth, trying to work it out. Gracopedia, it would seem, is a chatbot redrafting except with those politically sensitive topics redrafted to reflect its private owners, political beliefs. If that is of more value to a person than hundreds of thousands of people handwriting an alternative, fighting out what is and isn't the truth. There you go. It's there. To me, it's kind of just a weird novelty. It's like, oh, man. What if I had a chatbot rewrite the encyclopedia my way? But if you are willing to wield your technology like a cudgel in pursuit of the realization of your political goals on your little encyclopedia, and then you go over here and say, if you don't pay me a trillion dollars, I will build you a robot army. I would say, what possibly about your behavior makes you think I want you in control of a robot army, sir?

Speaker 2: Well, I think for fairness I try not to get too political on this. But the for fair for fairness, I think he said Mhmm. My future goal is to build the robot army, to build the marketplace for humanoid robots, to to further the conversion from, human labor to robot labor. We all know that that process is well underway. China is developing their own humanoid robots. The AI arms race between China and The US is well documented. And his note was essentially and there's a follow-up to this, so I'll get to that. But his thing was essentially, well, Tesla isn't really that company. It was never supposed to be the humanoid robot company. The only reason we've even been considering in this direct going considering going in this direction is because I'm interested in going in this direction. I see the the market for it. And I think that his his statement was essentially, if I'm gonna build the trillion dollar robot company, I wanna be a trillionaire. So either you guys agree to let me become a trillionaire and I'll do it at Tesla or else I'm gonna exit and go over to XAI, another company that I own. And I'm going to do it there. Because right after they approved his Compaq, they essentially came back out and said, It's been started to note and swing around the Internet that Tesla might now buy XAI and roll it in because they actually need the AI sophistication from XAI to power Optimus. So his many companies are about to reconsolidate just as they did with his solar company got rolled into Tesla. Like, I don't I'm not sure what's going on with this Boring company at this point. I feel like it has to be a Tesla company at this point. Yeah. I haven't heard about the

Speaker 1: Boring company in a real long time.

Speaker 2: So I think the I think the AI arms race is a interest is a more interesting topic than who's going to build the robot army. I think as far as well known characters in the AI space, the person who that I would assume was going to be the one building the robot army would be Elon Musk as he is as interested in AI, as he is in machinery, as he is in, you know, you name it. All the different component pieces that will be required to build

Speaker 1: Said robot army. If you say said it's like bloody Mary. You see robot army into the mirror three times, and Elon Musk makes a buck. Yeah. I suppose my

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1: My question, which is maybe bigger than Elon Musk, but is in this particular conversation localized on him because of said trillion dollar compensation package to build a robot army, is is anyone with the desire to build a trillion dollar robot army of the disposition that we would want them in control of a trillion dollar robot company? That that question is bigger than Elon Musk. Okay. He just happens to have inserted himself in the middle of it.

Speaker 2: I'll counter this and say, the government of China

Speaker 1: Oh, no. That's not or Elon Musk. Any anything he wants to do is okay because if he doesn't, China will do it first. It's like No.

Speaker 2: No. But China's already doing it. Okay. If you were of the belief that the supercycle If you were of the

Speaker 1: belief that the supercycle in the market

Speaker 2: and in society is that we're going to more artificially intelligent automation, that humanoid robots will start facilitating manual labor practices, etcetera, etcetera, then you're kind of accepting that the humanoid armies the humanoid robot army is not

Speaker 1: Nothing about the existence of large language models presumes the need for humanoid robots. It's like they're we talk about them in the same breadth, but they are not the same thing.

Speaker 2: Totally.

Speaker 1: No.

Speaker 2: They're definitely not the same thing. I think we all grew up watching and reading the same sci fi. And I think we're at that place now where mechanically we're capable of building robots that do finite tasks, very complicated actuators. I know that Tesla's spent so much time focusing on Optimus' hands to make sure that those hands can do some tasks that humans can do.

Speaker 1: Put it that way. Robotics is improving in the same way. Yes.

Speaker 2: Robotics is grossly improving.

Speaker 1: Learning improved, and we hit this sort of, like, thrust forward moment with generative output. Totally.

Speaker 2: Sure. And and those two things are gonna collide. And not only, like, not by, like, design, but by will. And so the Chinese governments and a lot of Chinese companies are now driving this agenda on their side of the ocean. Somebody in The States either has to pick up that baton and run with it in a market economy. And to me, it's like, of course, it's Elon Musk. And so the question would become, if we know that we're going to a future where there are humanoid robot armies, do you want the one that's doing your dishes to be the one that's licensed from the Chinese government, or do you want the one that's developed by Elon Musk?

Speaker 1: I guess I reject the idea that the binary is the Chinese government and specifically Elon Musk. That Elon Musk is the only embodiment of that. Like, I I hear what you're saying. I really, really do. Yeah. Yeah. But I, like, I brought up I did that whole silly Graca pedia anecdote to be like Mhmm. The disposition of a man that would rewrite the encyclopedia except how he sees it is like that's that's relevant in a discussion like this. What you are willing to do with your power is like, I'm not and I I do reject the idea that if I don't go, like, it's awesome that Elon Musk is doing this. I'm, like, in favor of the Chinese government doing it. I'm like, that's not that's not real.

Speaker 2: No. No. No.

Speaker 1: No. No. Specifically

Speaker 2: I've totally created a false dichotomy, I guess.

Speaker 1: Straight a point. I I take it.

Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 1: I I'm I'm drilling in on, like, a man's a specific man's disposition.

Speaker 2: Sure. I I I think that, like, obviously, there's gonna be more entrance. Like, this is a free market.

Speaker 1: You can buy a Neo. You can buy a Neo right now.

Speaker 2: But if you start talking about a $140,000,000,000,000 market share, you're going to start seeing a ton more entrants coming into that market. So the false dichotomy is very false. It's just that the fact that the two parties that are the furthest along in this mission appear to be Elon Musk and government of China backed companies. So where we get to in the next five to seven years, for sure. Who knows what it's going to be? I haven't looked at Grakipedia. I can't look at it. I'm sure it's the same sentiment as why he bought X. He wants a free speech, more unbiased internet, whether you agree with that or not is what it is. For me, if there truly is, like, the AI arms race between North America and China, I don't know who else is gonna do it besides Elon. And that's why I don't hate his Compaq. Like, he could have gone over to XAI and done it, raised the money, built the factories. Like, the man is worth enough money to do anything that he feels like doing. So I don't know. As as a Tesla shareholder Oh, okay. I voted yes.

Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, it's it it can only make the line go up. Yeah. It just leaves that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Speaker 2: I I I think the real umbrella question that you wanna talk about, and maybe this is not the place for it is Yeah. When income inequality gets that high in a society Yeah. Usually that society crumbles throughout, like, history.

Speaker 1: That is, that is definitely, like, skirting the boundary. I alluded to this upfront, which is the idea of, like, it's funny how if we let the clock on this show go more than thirty minutes outside of the normal hour of the ending end here, is like, I I I'm trying to separate out the fact that I find the idea that anyone's labor is worth this amount of money. It's like, I know there's just a political difference between me and other people in the world on that. And I'm I'm trying to put that off to the side of the desk because otherwise, all conversations about these amounts of money just sort of end with, well, that shouldn't be the case.

Speaker 2: Okay. Totally fair.

Speaker 1: Look how far we got.

Speaker 2: Look how far we got.

Speaker 1: Meta running scam ads. Did we ever talk about Binance?

Speaker 2: No. We didn't. We didn't.

Speaker 1: K. Well, I queued it up in the beginning. People are gonna this is gonna be a long one.

Speaker 2: Oh, and I have to say it. But I am and I've said it on the show before. I'm pretty staunch believer in the freedom of speech.

Speaker 1: K.

Speaker 2: And think it is a fundamental freedom that needs to be protected at all cost. I would agree. I don't like seeing anything impacted. I think that there should be consequences to behavior and the utilization of it, but I don't think it should ever be made illegal.

Speaker 1: Of course not.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1: Wholeheartedly agree. I can't think of any better embodiment of freedom of speech than hundreds of thousands of people hashing out what the truth is.

Speaker 2: K. Let's get to Binance.

Speaker 1: Let's get to Binance. Okay. For anyone that doesn't know, Changpeng Zhao, known very widely as CZ. He's like a very influential cryptocurrency figure. He was charged. He's He's Canadian citizen born in China, migrated to Vancouver where I live. He founded Binance in 2017. It was one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges on Earth within, like, eighteen months. Like, just stratospheric kind of takeoff for this guy. At its peak, two of every three crypto trades was done on Binance. Regulators claim Binance platforms were used for money laundering, sanctions evasion. November 2023, the DOJ announced that CZ had pleaded guilty to violating US money laundering laws, that they had knowingly failed to, like, put in place protections for anti money laundering. And they were fined 4,300,000,000 personally. CZ personally was fined $50,000,000 He was sentenced to four months in US Federal Prison and barred from running the company for three years after. We were talking about this because, he was recently pardoned. President Trump went on sixty minutes and famously said he does not know Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, ten days after granting him the presidential pardon. At the heart of this is a conflict of interest question centered on the Trump family's crypto venture world liberty liberty financial and USD 1, a stable coin project, that that was used in a $2,000,000,000, Abu Dhabi backed investment into Binance, CZ's company, this past spring.

Speaker 2: We haven't talked about crypto in a while.

Speaker 1: We haven't talked about crypto. It's been a minute.

Speaker 2: It's been a minute. Yeah. I I was just thinking it was like, k. So we've got CZ. He got the pardon. Yeah. But FDX Sam Bankman Fried didn't get the pardon. But I guess that's it's actually surprising that Biden, on the way out the door when he just blanket pardoned everybody, didn't also blanket pardon Sam Bankman Fried because Sam Bankman Fried had given, what, like, a $100,000,000 to the Democratic Party?

Speaker 1: Significant donor. Totally.

Speaker 2: So so it's surprising that that CZ catches the pardon before Sam Bankman did. And Sam Bankman literally prepaid for it. So it's

Speaker 1: He really didn't get what he paid for on that one.

Speaker 2: Didn't he really didn't get it.

Speaker 1: Yeah. You could maybe argue that it's, one is a deal in the past. It's like you said prepaid for it.

Speaker 2: Exactly.

Speaker 1: One's a deal in the past, and the other is a a deal, you know, still still happening. USD 1 and the the Trump family cryptocurrency is still still unfolding, right now. So

Speaker 2: Does CZ have anything to do with it? Has that been announced?

Speaker 1: I don't know that the pardon revokes I think the pardon would revoke the rule saying that he's not allowed to be part of Binance. So, theoretically, it would be bringing the old leadership into Binance who has the connection to the World Liberty Financial kind of project. But, we're just gonna have to have to see.

Speaker 2: Yeah. Interesting. It's a

Speaker 1: good one.

Speaker 2: I wonder what Sam Bankman's thinking.

Speaker 1: Probably pretty pissed. I'd be mad. I'd be mad if I spent that much money. I was just like, oh, for sure, get a pardon. When this all blows up and they didn't,

Speaker 2: you'd be so mad. Especially when Biden was giving, like, preemptive pardons. Like, just anything my son has ever done is, like, totally okay. Right? Everybody's cool with this? There's not even charges against this person, but they're pardoned for anything that they might be charged for. It's like, is that even custody? It's starting

Speaker 1: to look like this whole I I'm not a an American lawyer, but, like, the whole pardon thing is, like, a pretty wacky premise when you really think about it, where it's just like there's, like, a golden ticket to a law not applying to you. It's like, that's that's wild. And what's that ticket cost?

Speaker 2: What's that ticket worth?

Speaker 1: We have a price tag.

Speaker 2: Yeah. So he made over Sam Bankman Fried made over $40,000,000 in donations to the Democratic party in 2022 alone.

Speaker 1: That's a that's a beefy contribution.

Speaker 2: That is that is like that's like a like, what's it cost in monopoly to get out of jail?

Speaker 1: Yeah. A lot less than that. But so does property, so I don't know if their prices are pegged to inflation anymore.

Speaker 2: That's true. That's true. Anyway, I say we ended there.

Speaker 1: You wrap it up. This is a chatty chat. I hope I hope your dishes are done. Hope you made it through your commute. We'll be back, next episode with, an interview. I'm very, very excited to share with y'all. I think it'd be fun. But until then, I think we, we'll catch you in the next one. Take care.

Speaker 6: This episode is brought to you by Nespresso. Life moves quickly, and taking care of yourself shouldn't feel like another chore. With the new Nespresso virtual up machine, morning routines become rituals. Whether organizing, getting the household moving, or preparing for the day, your coffee shouldn't ask for more. With Vertuo Up, just press brew and your morning begins. Rich aroma, old flavor, zero effort. Press to explore. Every coffee, a new world. New virtual up. Shop now at nespresso.com.

Speaker 7: Take this as your sign to go. Just get out there and go. This summer at Best Western, get 1,000 bonus points and a chance to win 250,000 bonus points. Life's a trip. Make the most of it at bestwestern.com. No additional purchase necessary for sweeps. See bonus point t's and c's and sweeps rules for details.

Speaker 1: When I found out I

Speaker 8: was gonna be a parent, I immediately felt a lot of anxiety and worry. So I went on to BetterHelp to try to look for a therapist to help me with that.

Speaker 2: My relationship with my family and with my boyfriend and with myself were suffering. I really needed help.

Speaker 7: I was ruminating a lot. Really getting those thoughts out to a therapist and getting feedback was just life changing.

Speaker 1: Discover what BetterHelp online therapy can do for you. Visit betterhelp.com today.