E150: Israel/Gaza escalating or not? EU censorship regime, Penn donors revolt, GLP-1 hype cycle

1. 0:00 – 0:49

   Bestie intros

   1. DSDavid Sacks0:00

      Well, you're talking about three very different actors there.

   2. JCJason Calacanis0:02

      Wait. David, David behind you is your security cameras are on. Do you want to turn those off?

   3. DSDavid Sacks0:06

      Yeah, I don't know how that ...

   4. JCJason Calacanis0:08

      (laughs)

   5. DSDavid Sacks0:08

      All right. Hold on a second. Let me...

   6. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:11

      You sit there and watch those all day? (laughs)

   7. JCJason Calacanis0:12

      Security apparatus. (laughs)

   8. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:14

      Jesus Christ. What is this guy, the Batman? (laughs)

   9. DSDavid Sacks0:18

      He sits in that couch all day and watches his security.

   10. JCJason Calacanis0:20

       Bruce Wayne, hey.

   11. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:22

       Did you see that behind him? It was so dystopian. Oh my gosh.

   12. JCJason Calacanis0:26

       You must have caught some crazy shit on those security cameras, Sax. What do you do with that footage? 50s R&B music plays ]

   13. DFDavid Friedberg0:33

       We're going all in. Let your winners ride.

   14. JCJason Calacanis0:36

       Rain Man, David Sax.

   15. DFDavid Friedberg0:38

       I'm going all in.

   16. GUGuest0:41

       NSN.

   17. DSDavid Sacks0:41

       We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

   18. JCJason Calacanis0:44

       Love you NSN.

   19. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:45

       Queen of Quinoa.

   20. DFDavid Friedberg0:47

       I'm going all in.

2. 0:49 – 23:20

   State of Israel/Gaza: Information wars, delayed ground war, domestic political pressures

   1. DFDavid Friedberg0:49

   2. JCJason Calacanis0:49

      Okay, everybody. Welcome to episode 150 of the All-In Podcast. Yes, we've made it to 150 episodes somehow talking about technology, business, and of course politics. And this week we will continue our discussion, tragically, about the situation in Israel, uh, and the war with Hamas, and a lot of the downstream effects of what's going on here, and try to make sense of the world as we do. We gave a disclaimer last week, we're not experts. And I suspect many of you are not experts on this, but we're going to try to talk about the hard topic here and do it in good faith, and then we will move on to topics that don't have to do with the war in Gaza, uh, that could, by the time you read this, again, another disclaimer, by the time you listen to this podcast, a ground invasion may or may not have started. We tape these on Thursdays and you listen to them, generally speaking, on Saturdays and Sundays. With me again this week, Chamath Palihapitiya, David Sax, and of course, David Friedberg. And, uh, gentlemen, I'm just going around the horn here quick before I tee up the first topic, how's everybody feeling about the events, uh, in, in the 10 days since 10/7 and the terrorist attack that occurred in Israel?

   3. CPChamath Palihapitiya2:13

      I skipped last week. I was too emotional to do the show, just so folks know. It was, uh, difficult to see what I saw on the internet and the reporting. I think I was m- really moved, uh, because I thought a lot about the, like, how lucky we are, and m- I thought about my children and seeing what I saw. And being a parent, um, it's really different.

   4. JCJason Calacanis2:49

      Mm-hmm.

   5. CPChamath Palihapitiya2:50

      I remember 9/11, it was really shocking. I was really upset from 9/11 as well, but when I saw the events last week, it immediately projected onto my kids and the care I try and take for my kids in thinking about the experience of other people i- in this situation. I was also, I'll be honest, really moved and saddened because of the bombing of children in Gaza, and I was really saddened that there were innocent children suffering there as well. And the whole thing just felt so horrific to me. I don't think about the justification or the morality of one side over another, I was just more moved because I felt really sad about the experience of a lot of families and a lot of children caught in the middle, uh, caught in this, in this environment. So I was, I was pretty hurt last week. I was in a really bad state and I couldn't do the show. I think, you know, time has allowed me to kind of become a bit rational about things and try and understand where things are headed, and it's a really complicated, confusing situation, and it's really sad. I worry a lot about where things are headed, not just in the Middle East, but also domestically coming out of this conflict. So that's where I'm at.

   6. JCJason Calacanis4:13

      Yeah. Uh, uh, thank you for sharing. I wasn't sure if you would share, um, your absence last week, and I think it's fair. I too have been thinking about my own children and its, uh... and 9/11, and it's, it's very dark, yeah, and so it's hard to talk about, but we're making progress here, I think. And today we'll talk about a lot of the issues. Chamath, uh, or Sax, any, uh, opening thoughts before we get started delving into what's actually happening, and then more importantly, I think where this is heading and what the possible outcome or resolution could be, if there is a resolution here? I think things are getting better actually. I think- ... from where... If you had to graph your expectations of how bad things could get, I think what most people would probably say is somewhere last week there was a scepter of some potential World War III-like contagion, and I think in general it hasn't stopped some of the bloodshed, but the extent to which we expected this thing to escalate, it actually hasn't happened. And so if you take a step back and you kind of calmly and coldly look at the facts, I think that there are a lot of people on all sides trying to maintain their composure in a moment where there's a lot of brush fires. So I actually think that this has been much, much better than it could have been, and so I'm generally optimistic that we're going to find our way out of this.

   7. CPChamath Palihapitiya6:01

      So Saks, any thoughts?... as we open it.

   8. DSDavid Sacks6:04

      Well, to be honest, I can't be as optimistic as Chamath. It's true that World War III hasn't started yet but I think the situation is incredibly volatile still. Just in the last couple of days, the headline story was, uh, an explosion or bombing of this hospital in Gaza. Blame immediately fell on Israel and the claim in the New York Times was that they had dropped a bomb on it from a plane, social media was aflame with that. I think in the last day or so, the perspective seems to be changing. There's video now showing that it wasn't the hospital but rather, the parking lot next to the hospital that took the brunt of the damage. I think that it's far from clear that Israel did it, a lot of people are blaming Islamic jihad. In any event, it's very unclear. So I'm gonna continue to do what I've done which is suspend judgment until there can be some sort of proper investigation of, of what happened and we find out exactly who's really responsible, but it does seem that over the last day or so, there's been now a backing off of the idea that Israel was definitely responsible for this. Nonetheless, you saw immediately in the wake of that story coming out that there were protests and riots all over the Middle East. The Arab street w- was absolutely ignited, and I think that the Arab street's not gonna be convinced that Israel wasn't responsible for this. I just think that they're convinced, and I think partisans on both sides are convinced about who did it and they're gonna be immune to whatever evidence comes out. So, I think that's kind of the situation we- we're at right now. I would consider the, the riots that we just saw in regards to the hospital and the eruption on social media to be a, a prelude, or dress rehearsal, of what we can expect to happen almost every day if Israel proceeds with a ground invasion of Gaza. Now, they haven't done that yet and that's why this situation seems tenuous but stable, but we're still waiting to find out if Israel's gonna go into Gaza, and if they do, I think all bets are off in terms of where this is going.

   9. CPChamath Palihapitiya8:19

      This was my biggest concern last week. I, um, I, I think the thing I was most anxious about was that the imagery that would come out of Gaza with the action from Israel would be the fodder for escalation worldwide. That there's this perception already with half a billion people, maybe two billion people, maybe more, that there's an oppressor and there's an oppressed and the oppressed is suffering under the oppressor, and that there would be the creation of fodder to support that narrative. And I think that the hospital bombing, the kind of point I made to someone who reached out to me two days ago or yesterday about it was, I don't know if it matters that we get the corrections from all these people that may have said something that turns out to not be true, because it was almost like that media became confirmation bias for people that already felt that this is what was going on and this is simply evidence of what is going on and it justifies the next step. It, it justifies the beliefs, it justifies the morality, and I don't think that if it, if it wasn't this, it's some- it's gonna be something else. There is a tinderbox ready to be lit, and that tinderbox is just looking for a match and whether it's this match or the next match, there's gonna be a match, and the tinderbox will be lit. I think that a large number of people feel like they're on the right side. E- everyone thinks they're on the right side of something. Everyone feels like they have the right moral stance, that there's a regime on the other side that has the wrong moral stance; I am good, you are evil, and therefore anything I see is my confirmation bias for my belief and it'll, it gives me permission to take the next step. And in that framework, it will only escalate and we are only going to a dark place. And I think, like, the, the real question for me to Chamath's optimism is what are the muting factors? What are the factors where one side feels like they're getting something that forces them to say, "I'm not gonna take the next step. I, I'm not gonna justify the next step." And it's a, it's a really hard question to answer at this stage.

   10. DFDavid Friedberg10:40

       Well, lookit, let's take that other side and just explore it for a second. So, the question that I've been asking myself is, a- and 'cause I agree with you, it doesn't matter who was responsible for this bombing because it's already been defined for-

   11. CPChamath Palihapitiya10:55

       Well, i- i- in, in, yeah, but in a moral sense it does, just, yeah, yeah, just give me one-

   12. DFDavid Friedberg10:57

       No, no, in a moral sense it does but I'm saying practically in the theater of war and the theaters near the war, it doesn't matter because it's about how is it framed, and to your point, people have already made up their minds. The pro-Israel side have made up their mind and the pro-Palestinian side has made up their mind. But, the question, the question that I ask myself is, okay, is that, how much of an incremental escalation is it from what their status quo is? You know, one of the interesting things I learned from the Jared Kushner interview with Lex Fridman, it's like, a lot of this tension you can trace back to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and all of the misinformation around that, right? He spends a, a, a section of that podcast talking about how that's been framed and reframed, the mis- and dis-information to basically get people fervently up in arms, and it turns out that it isn't under the supervision of the Israelis and in fact, you know, you can go get a visa to visit Al-Aqsa Mosque and it's under the custodianship of the King of Jordan, as an example.So that is the fact, but those facts aren't necessarily shared on the ground, and that is where a lot of this original tension comes from. So then I ask myself, "Okay, well if that's been lingering for decades, how much more incrementally bad does it get for this specific thing?" And I think you see it in people's actions, which is they try to use it to escalate, and my honest measurement of that escalation is that outside of the actual theater of war, most of these escalations died down pretty quickly. Now, if all of these embassies were overrun and all of a sudden you saw a, a Beirut-like situation, right, the U.S. embassy in Beirut in the early '80s, I would agree with you that this is getting really bad really quickly. But that's not what we saw. And I think what that speaks to more is how much hatred is actually in the heart of people versus not. And so I think that this was a moment for people to channel their anxiety and some of their aggression and some of their hatred towards America or Israel, but what it didn't was escalate. You didn't see these embassies get burnt to the ground. You didn't see people getting dragged out. And so I'm not trying to justify that behavior, I'm just trying to look at it in an absolute sense and answer the question, is it escalating or is it not escalating? And my assessment right now is that it is not escalating. I saw on Sunday something that I thought I would never see, which is Iran put out a press release through the United Nations to Israel. You haven't seen that. That's deescalatory. That's not an escalatory action from a country whose mission statement includes the destruction and demise of a country. So I think when push comes to shove, there are a lot of people in positions of power who understand the stakes here and are trying their best on both sides and, and I, I hate this word so I can't even believe I'm about to use it (laughs) , to find some proportionality and try to deescalate. That's how I measure and judge what I see over the last week.

   13. CPChamath Palihapitiya14:24

       A lot of people use labels to characterize the actions, the, the tonality, the behavior of the other side, because w- everyone believes that they're on the right side. And the point of view that there is hate and anger on the other side comes from a place not out of the blue. Hate and anger doesn't just emerge from nothing. It, it typically comes from a place of deep hurt. I think the biggest question for me is how do you resolve the deep hurt that is being felt and has been felt by either side over a very long period of time? It's the hardest thing to answer because what do you give millions of people that have lived feeling hurt for so long, feeling challenged for so long, that makes them feel resolved in that sense? And I get that we can be these things, but-

   14. JCJason Calacanis15:17

       You're speaking about the Palestinian people.

   15. CPChamath Palihapitiya15:20

       I'm speaking about the Israeli people too.

   16. JCJason Calacanis15:22

       Okay.

   17. CPChamath Palihapitiya15:22

       And I'm s- I'm speaking about the fact that, like, these actions don't... They don't come out of the blue. They don't come out of a place of, like, greed-

   18. JCJason Calacanis15:31

       Well, look, let's-

   19. CPChamath Palihapitiya15:32

       ... or maliciousness.

   20. JCJason Calacanis15:32

       Let's go to, let's go to an example in our own lives. Let's just say that we have a friend or, you know, we had a girlfriend at some point where there's a deep betrayal, okay? And then there's just an unrelenting anger. To your point, before you can talk about the hurt, you have to deescalate the anger. So there has to be an active process of deescalation before you can actually resolve this stuff. I thought Israel was quite clear last week, "We are going into Gaza on Sunday," but then they didn't. That seemed deescalatory. Again, I'll just say it again, Iran puts out a press release to Israel through the UN. That seemed deescalatory. There was a moment where Jordan, the Palestinian authority, and Biden were supposed to meet. They ended up not meeting in Amman, but that seemed deescalatory. Biden, Tony Blinken, Tony refused to leave the IDF until he got some assurances about humanitarian aid into Gaza. That seems deescalatory. Biden spending time and then reiterating those assurances from Netanyahu. Again, all of this stuff seems like both sides are in the middle of all of this chaos, not trying to light the tinderbox. And it doesn't mean that they're on a path to resolution, but I, I, I-

   21. CPChamath Palihapitiya16:55

       Right.

   22. JCJason Calacanis16:55

       ... I just think that they, they understand the stakes. Saks, when we look at the hospital situation specifically and the fog of war, you had the New York Times getting attacked for maybe taking Hamas' word for it, then flipping, and then now there is conspiracy theory the United States is, you know, carrying water for Israel, and then the fog of war, "Oh my goodness, we, maybe the, the hospital wasn't even hit. It was in the, it was in the parking lot and so it, it didn't even get hit." So when we look at all of that and then Chamath says, "Hey, wait, things haven't escalated," I, I actually, I happen to be here in Dubai right now on a business trip, and I'll explain some of, uh, the feedback I've gotten from people who are Palestinian, uh, ethnically, or Jordanian and of Palestinian descent, uh, I should say, and, and we'll get into that in a second. The ground war hasn't happened, and this seems to be one of the, as Chamath is pointing out, it's just fascinating that it hasn't because it was supposed to have happened already. Do you have any thoughts on why it hasn't happened? One of the conspiracy theories, and, and I hate to go down these roads because in the fog of war I think people try to fill a vacuum and then of course, uh, as you were pointing out, Chamath and Freiberg, people then use it as evidence for their side. The people here in Dubai, a number of people have pointed out this, uh, ground war is not gonna happen.... that it's saber-rattling but, uh, Israel is gonna back, back down and get the hostages back. And this has been told to me by many people. And now I don't know if that's wishful thinking or, uh, some kind of conspiracy theory, but, but what do you take from the ground war not happening? And then if you wanna go back and touch on the fog of war issue here with things flipping back and forth and, and what is actual reality, and just broadly speaking, escalating or de-escalating effects.

   23. DSDavid Sacks18:50

       Look, I think that there's a few possible reasons why Israel hasn't gone in yet. Number one is they may perceive it to be a very difficult military operation. They're almost certainly walking into a trap. There's gonna be ambushes everywhere, snipers, IEDs. Hamas has an elaborate tunnel network. They can disappear down that tunnel network when the fighting gets too hot. They can booby-trap the access points. They've got anti-tank weapons that can take out armored vehicles. It's gonna be a very difficult fight for the Israelis. And so they may be taking a pause here just to assess that situation and maybe get organized for it, or, or maybe think better of it. So th- they may be either stopping to organize or getting cold feet. I think second, they have to think through the consequences of going in there. Hezbollah has basically threatened to open up a northern front and invade Israel if Israel goes into Gaza. You also saw, as we saw with the reaction to the hospital, uh, bombing, that they have to be concerned about the Arab street erupting and th- again, if they go into Gaza, this could ignite the whole Arab world. It seems to me that if you're Israel, you don't want to become the focal point for all of this anger in the Arab or larger Muslim world. There are important differences in that world. There's differences between Sunnis and Shiite. There's differences between Arabs and Persians and Turks. And the last thing you want is to paper over all those differences by having everybody's anger targeted at you. So I think there's very big consequences that could follow geopolitically. I think, again, the war would almost certainly not just be a single front war against Gaza. It could turn into a multi-front war. So that's, I think, the second reason. I think the third reason is you have to believe that there's furious diplomacy going on behind the scenes, and I think this is what Chamath is referring to. What we don't know, obviously, are the, the content of those conversations. We don't know what the Biden administration has told the Netanyahu government. We don't know if they've said to them, "Listen, we are not gonna get involved in this." Uh, publicly, they've said that, "We stand with Israel," but you just have to wonder what they're privately telling the Israelis. All of that being said, I think that Israel has declared that it's at war with Hamas. There are these stories that are coming out daily of these atrocities that were perpetrated by Hamas. I saw one-

   24. JCJason Calacanis21:20

       Yikes.

   25. DSDavid Sacks21:20

       ... by paramedics-

   26. JCJason Calacanis21:21

       Yeah.

   27. DSDavid Sacks21:21

       ... who discovered the bodies and described the way they were tortured. The population of Israel demands retribution, and so Netanyahu is under intense domestic political pressure to deliver on that. So I, I think that Chamath is right that things haven't escalated yet, but I wouldn't say they've de-escalated. Blinken did demand and Biden did announce those, uh, r- relieving of some of the humanitarian issues in Gaza. But to my knowledge, they have not been implemented yet.

   28. JCJason Calacanis21:49

       They turned the water back on, I believe. Yeah.

   29. DSDavid Sacks21:52

       Okay, so I think this thing is still a powder keg and it could erupt. And again, it all comes back to this key question of does Israel go into, to Gaza or not? If they don't, then I think that creates room for some sort of international diplomatic effort to get the hostages back and maybe de-escalate the situation. And I guess we'll find out over the next week or so.

   30. JCJason Calacanis22:14

       And that- that you didn't even mention that there could be some deep diplomacy here going on in terms of releasing the hostages, and maybe somehow they believe if they go in too early, the chances of getting those hostages out alive could be seriously diminished. Yeah.
3. 23:20 – 42:56

   Understanding Israel's political dynamics, feelings throughout the Middle East, why a two-state solution has failed in the past

   1. DSDavid Sacks23:20

      point here. Delving into the internal politics of another country is not something that we typically like to do or that Americans are particularly good at. But when a situation like this happens that could drag us into a war, we do have to kinda understand the internal dynamics of these countries. Israel is a country that, for the last several years, has been very internally divided. There's been something like five elections in the last four years. Netanyahu got reelected in December of 2022 by creating a new coalition with far-right elements of the Israeli political system. And Chamath, you mentioned the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and I, and I know Jared's take on, on this was that he thought that this was blown out of proportion, but I'll give you a different perspective on this. I've just been researching this. If you read Al Jazeera, what they point to is a, the emergence of a far-right figure named Itamar Ben-Gvir who has become a member of Netanyahu's government as a result of this coalition that was forged in December.And Ben-Gvir has been... He, previously, he was a, a, a fringe, sort of anti-Palestinian, far right provocateur. When he was 19 years old, he basically had somehow stolen or taken the hood ornament from Yitzhak Rabin, the then Prime Minister's car, and was waving it around saying that, "If we can get to your car, we can get to you." Three weeks later, uh, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a far right religious ex- extremist in Israel because they felt that he had committed treason by signing the Oslo Accords. Now, Ben-Gvir wasn't implicated himself, but it gives you a sense of kind of where he's coming from. And Ben-Gvir has led, over the past year, several incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque area. And the reason he's s- said he's done this is to show that the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock near the Haram al-Sharif, which is the third holiest site in Islam after Mecca and Medina, he says that that is under the sovereignty of Israel, that that belongs to Israel. There is also a faction of the Israeli far right that wants to build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount. You have to understand that that cannot happen while the Al-Aqsa Mosque is still there. So, you have these, I don't mind saying, crazies... I mean, to, to, to destroy or even to imply that you would ever destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque is such an explosive issue. It would turn the entire Muslim world against Israel and basically, I think it would be the end of Israel. But you have these figures who've now been incorporated into Netanyahu's cabinet and I, they are, I think, far to the right of Netanyahu, but they are pressuring Netanyahu. They are, seem to be baying for some sort of religious war. So, you know, the, the domestic politics of another country is not something that we're totally familiar with. But you have to understand that Israel does have these elements. And man, I hope that the Biden administration is telling Netanyahu that, "Yeah, we stand with Israel, but not if you're gonna follow the advice of these far right religious extremists."

   2. JCJason Calacanis26:37

      This is, um, I think a very important point to, to pause on here and maybe unpack, which is, uh, as I said, I'm, I'm here in, uh, Dubai and, uh, had this trip planned. And I'm actually-

   3. CPChamath Palihapitiya26:49

      Well, tell us what you're, what you're hearing. What are you hearing? What, what do they, what do people say?

   4. JCJason Calacanis26:54

      Yeah. It's fascinating. Um, and, uh, it's... This is gonna get a little touchy and so I just wanna be clear. I'm, I'm gonna tell people what the conversations are here. It's not necessarily me endorsing, uh, a- any of these positions and-

   5. CPChamath Palihapitiya27:07

      Of course.

   6. JCJason Calacanis27:07

      ... again, I'm no expert. Uh, of course. And on Saturday night, I went to a bat mitzvah. My friend's, um, daughters had their bat mitzvah. And, uh, and Tuesday night I had dinner-

   7. CPChamath Palihapitiya27:16

      Sorry, where? In Israel or-

   8. JCJason Calacanis27:18

      No, in the Bay Area. And then-

   9. CPChamath Palihapitiya27:20

      Oh, in the Bay Area. I see.

   10. JCJason Calacanis27:20

       ... I, I flew here and this juxtaposition where I had dinner last night, uh, with five Jordanians who are of Palestinian descent. Uh, and they universally are appalled by Hamas and their, what happened, right? So, uh, just say that right out front. And then they are perplexed why there is no discussion in the West, in America, of the conditions that could have led to this and the treatment of the Palestinian people, who they believe are living in apartheid. And that word is used over and over again. And that they have, you know, now a generation of people who have no hope, and a generation of people who have nothing to lose, and that they, they have nothing to live for. And, and this is, uh, the piece of the discussion that has gotten a lot of people in the West, I think, in trouble talking about it. We had a conference producer who, um, was tweeting, "Hey, listen," you know, very early on, like on the, on 10/7, uh, "Israel has to abide by, you know, international law," et cetera. And, and this came up over and over again from, uh, Muslims here in Dubai that the West is not, and, and the free world is not holding Israel accountable to human rights standards, basic standard tenets of war. And I was coming into the trip a little bit more positive, and now there's such a deep hurt on both sides of this that I s- I got to see, you know, from, from both of these events and, and people suffering that I, um, my normally positive outlook has been a little bit shaken, if I'm being honest. This feels very intractable to me. And, uh, yeah, to even go near the topic of what has Israel contributed to this situation and, and the treatment of the Palestinian people, that's what the people in the region want to hear us talk about or just hear the world talk about.

   11. CPChamath Palihapitiya29:20

       Any reaction to some of the protests that happened in Europe and the people that took to the streets? What, what was their perspective on that?

   12. JCJason Calacanis29:27

       I think their perspective is a very small percentage of Americans care about the Palestinian people. And, you know, if you look at the surveys that have gone on, and I have some of the, the survey data that's been done, and I'm not sure American's views on this are the most important views for us to be focused on, but a very small percentage of people are aligned, um, with the Palestinian people, uh, as opposed to the state of Israel, so...

   13. CPChamath Palihapitiya29:54

       Well, I mean, the biggest challenge in finding a path towards... Uh, I don't want to just be so generic and say the word peace-

   14. JCJason Calacanis30:04

       No, I think that's the word. Yeah.

   15. CPChamath Palihapitiya30:05

       ... but towards some form of understanding and settlement with, with each other is that there's a framing right now that you have to pick a side. You're not allowed to be pro-Israel and also be sympathetic and empathetic to the plight of the children in Gaza. You're not allowed to say, "I'm looking out for the Palestinians, but I believe Israel should have a state." You're not allowed to point out the fact that there are multiple Muslim-majority countries and there's only one Jewish state.... while also saying that what the Israelis have done may also not be right. You're not allowed to take a nuanced point of view, and you're not allowed to address the variance in behavior over time with each of these different sides, and how there is a massive complicated mess here, that it has to be pick your side. You're pro-Israeli, we need to wipe out X, Y, or Z. Or you're anti-Israeli and, as a result, you're anti-Semite. And the fact that we conflate all of these things together and force people to jump on a side is what is also escalating that we can't actually have conversations around these topics, that it all ends up being pick a side, and then let's figure out how many people and what resources are on one side and what people and what resources are on the other. And I think that this notion that we have almost a cancel culture behavior that's now leached into this discourse, that if you try and talk about the plight of Palestinians, you cannot also be pro-Israel, is what's keeping us from making progress in finding a path to resolution. And I, I think that's the, the biggest issue right now. And, and we leverage the you're not a loyalist, you're not moral, you're not a good person, you're evil if you don't stand on our side. And both sides are act that way. And it's, that's the hardest thing to change. It's, I think the only way to find a path is to change that first. And I think starting with empathy is the only way, but man, that's impossible right now. Fucking impossible.

   16. JCJason Calacanis32:19

       Yeah, it's hard. It's hard right now.

   17. CPChamath Palihapitiya32:20

       I'm sorry. I'm just, I'm just super, like, wow, I'm super emotional about this because I just don't like the, like, you know...

   18. DSDavid Sacks32:26

       So, uh, there are, broadly speaking, two factions that we're seeing out in the streets, uh, either denouncing Israel or supporting the Palestinians. I think there is a group of people who genuinely hate Jews or hate Israel and do not believe in Israel's right to exist and are preaching things like decolonization, which is a recipe for, for genocide. Then there are people, and probably a larger group, who I think are concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people, who recognize the conditions they have as deplorable, and that the tactics that Israel uses to enforce its security, whether it's the occupation of the West Bank or the blockade of Gaza, are unsustainable and create unfair conditions for the Palestinians. So in other words, they're not saying that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. They are principally concerned with helping the Palestinians in achieving a Palestinian state. It seems to me of paramount importance that Israel separate these two groups by understanding the concern, and I would apply this to American leadership as well, by understanding the concerns of the latter and hopefully getting us on a path to resolving them-

   19. CPChamath Palihapitiya33:43

       Totally.

   20. DSDavid Sacks33:43

       ... so as to isolate the haters.

   21. CPChamath Palihapitiya33:46

       Totally.

   22. DSDavid Sacks33:47

       Because otherwise, this whole thing is headed towards a gigantic disaster where... And I, I think it's a disaster for, for Israel most of all, is that Israel could be destroyed.

   23. CPChamath Palihapitiya33:56

       But I think the whole world is being asked to pick a side too, and that's where this escalates into a much bigger, broader conflict. It's, it's that-

   24. JCJason Calacanis34:03

       Yeah. And in the position of-

   25. CPChamath Palihapitiya34:04

       Every country, and even within the US, we're being asked to pick a side, and now we're seeing civil unrest in the US.

   26. JCJason Calacanis34:09

       The frustration as well amongst people who are of, who, who are Muslim or who are Palestinian descent or Jordanian or just in the region generally, is that Hamas set this process back decades, and there's like a great frustration that maybe some progress was being made and that we could come to some normalcy and a two-state solution, and that Hamas did this exactly because so much progress has been made, uh, recently.

   27. DSDavid Sacks34:37

       I think that is the best theory about w- why this happened now is that there was a process of normalization happening between Israel and a number of these Arab states. And, and we talked about it last week that Jared Kushner set this in motion. There were three or four deals that were signed between Israel and the Gulf Arab states, uh, bringing about normal relations. And Saudi Arabia was on the table as being the next one. There was a effort underway to negotiate a normalization of, of relations between Israel and, and Saudi Arabia that is now completely on ice.

   28. JCJason Calacanis35:10

       And at risk of the other agreements maybe being ripped up because if Israel goes in and has a massive ground invasion and there's more suffering and death, that that will maybe blow all those accords up.

   29. DSDavid Sacks35:24

       I think that what Hamas may have been concerned about, to the extent you want to impute strategic logic to their decisions, even, you know, those decisions are atrocities, but if they have a strategic purpose in mind, it's to derail-

   30. JCJason Calacanis35:37

       Yeah.
4. 42:56 – 50:43

   Harvard and Penn megadonors cut ties

   1. JCJason Calacanis42:56

      looking at the reaction in the US, um, we saw a lot of discussion over young students writing arguments that Israel had brought this on themselves and were solely responsible for the Hamas attack. Um, and this has led to, uh, massive outrage amongst donors to, uh, Ivy League schools like Penn and Harvard, and obviously those have very large endowments and this is now le- leading to many of them pulling out of, uh, commitments they've made. Um, the Wexner Foundation, founded by Victoria's Secret's billionaire, said it's breaking off ties with Harvard. Gidon Ofer quit the executive board of Harvard's Kennedy School. Citadel's Ken Griffin, uh, who's donated more than a half a billion dollars to Harvard, placed a call a week- last week to the head of, uh, Harvard and asked the university to come o- out in support of Israel. And then more than a dozen anonymous donors told The New York Times they felt they had a right and an obligation to- to weigh in here. And before this all happened at Penn, donors had started pulling out because of a Palestinian rights festival that happened two weeks before the events of 10/7. From September 22nd to 24th, UPenn hosted the Palestine Rights Literature Festival. The festival was billed as a gathering to explore the richness and diversity of Palestinian culture, but according to multiple sources, it mostly focused on Jews, Israel, and Zionism. One speaker called for ethnic cleansing of Jews. Another said violence was a necessity. Any thoughts, Chamath? We were talking last week about these woke madrasas and then I guess this is the second-order and third-order effects coming into play.

   2. DFDavid Friedberg44:41

      If you said it more generically, this would be a perfect opportunity for these leading universities to actually provide nuance and teach people the history of both sides and to show the perspective of both sides.

   3. JCJason Calacanis44:59

      That would take leadership, yeah?

   4. DFDavid Friedberg45:00

      Mm-hmm.

   5. JCJason Calacanis45:00

      It would take courageous leadership on the part of the people who run the university.

   6. DFDavid Friedberg45:04

      Let's just be honest, I think these elite universities are essentially asset management businesses that have an education, the fig leaf of education wrapped around them. So, they're more like BlackRock than they are like a school. And so they behave like any for-profit asset manager would, which is that I think that as they didn't try to intervene in one way or the other over the last 15 or 20 years in actually making sure that they were graduating the best kids. So instead what happened is they get hijacked by professors and people who wanted one very specific strain of thinking. And I don't think it matters which strain it is, but it betrays what the point of a leading university is supposed to be. And then as a result, the people that graduate from these places are close-minded. And what that does is that that screws America, because you have all of these other places graduating kids with a different mindset who then go and build the things that matter, and America just keeps falling back, and we are just slower and we're not intellectually capable of thinking in a way that allows us to see more than just what's right in front of us. So, I don't know what you want me to say. It's- it's just like these-

   7. JCJason Calacanis46:20

      No, I'm- I'm just... It's a follow-up to what we talked about last week, and so I- I thought it was pertinent. Sacks, uh, looking at the free speech issue, there was some pushback online. Again, not my position, I'm just putting it out here for you to comment on, Sacks, which is blacklisting young college students who had an opinion about Palestine is wrong and you're trying to cancel people. What's your response to holding people accountable or canceling these students, uh, for their positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

   8. DSDavid Sacks46:56

      Well, what's happening now is that these campuses that took outrageous positions on this whole issue are now trying to wrap themselves in the cloak of academic freedom, as if that's a value they've been respecting. Free speech is not a value they've been respecting, free speech is a value they've been imposing. And this was, uh, revealed by a survey that was just done, the FIRE survey that surveyed students on 248 campuses on a range of free speech issues. So, it asked them about how comfortable do you feel expressing your views on controversial topics? What is the tolerance on campus for liberal speakers or conservative speakers? How acceptable is it to engage in disruptive conduct against a speaker on campus, such as shouting them down to prevent them from speaking? What sort of administrative support do different views get on campus? And how open is the campus to hearing about different issues? And what they found was that the most elite schools ranked the worst. The only elite private school to score above average on free speech was the University of Chicago, which got a score of about 65 out of a hundred, which made them rank number 13 overall. The rest of the top schools, the Ivies, were abysmal. Brown ranked number 69. Duke ranked 124, Princeton ranked 187, Stanford ranked 207. This is, again, out of a total number of, uh, 248. And Penn, which is where the donors are up in arms, ranked second to last, number two- uh, 247. They scored, uh, 11 points on the survey. And then Harvard finished 248-

   9. JCJason Calacanis48:42

      (laughs)

   10. DSDavid Sacks48:42

       ... out of 248 schools ranked-

   11. JCJason Calacanis48:44

       Zero.

   12. DSDavid Sacks48:44

       ... also known as, also known as dead last. And get this, the rating in the survey was 0.0. They scored a Blue Tarski.

   13. JCJason Calacanis48:53

       (laughs) 0.0.

   14. DFDavid Friedberg48:54

       (laughs)

   15. DSDavid Sacks48:55

       Remember, uh, Blue Tarski in Animal House?

   16. JCJason Calacanis48:57

       Yes. (laughs)

   17. DSDavid Sacks48:57

       He scored 0.0.

   18. JCJason Calacanis48:59

       (laughs) .

   19. DFDavid Friedberg48:59

       (laughs)

   20. DSDavid Sacks49:00

       Harvard scored 0.0.

   21. JCJason Calacanis49:01

       Zero point...... zero. (laughs)

   22. DSDavid Sacks49:04

       Yes.

   23. JCJason Calacanis49:05

       (laughs)

   24. DSDavid Sacks49:06

       So, so, look, I think-

   25. JCJason Calacanis49:07

       Uh-

   26. DSDavid Sacks49:07

       ... it would be, it would be one thing if these schools said to the alumni, "We agree with you that some of these speakers were over the top, but this is what academic freedom's all about." But they have no standing to say-

   27. JCJason Calacanis49:21

       Yeah.

   28. DSDavid Sacks49:21

       ... anything like that, because they have been suppressing views on campus-

   29. JCJason Calacanis49:24

       There's no consistency, yeah.

   30. DSDavid Sacks49:25

       They've been allowing speakers to be shouted down. They have been stifling the presentation of alternative views. So this is clearly... these types of speakers, these types of views that I think absolutely cross the line, from, again, what we talked about, which is type two support for, legitimate support for a Palestinian state, into hatred of Israel and Jews, and denying the right to exist. It, it absolutely crossed over in many of these cases. There's a outrageous talk given by, I think, a Cornell professor who was outright praising this massacre.
5. 50:43 – 1:06:05

   The EU's DSA: consumer protection or censorship regime?

   1. JCJason Calacanis50:43

      so, tangentially related to the speech issues, in the EU, officials held a meeting to discuss enforcement of the DSA, or Digital Services Act. Uh, for some background here, the EU's Digital Services Act updated the EU's Electronic Commerce Directive of 2000, which was inspired by, uh, Section 230 here in the US, common carrier laws, uh, where the common carriers, be those AOL, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, are not responsible for what individuals post on their platforms. And so, that protection's been critically important, not making social media sites or WordPress into editors, or having them have to censor content on their platforms. So, the DSA officially went into effect in August of this year. The main goal was to, quote-unquote, "foster safer online environments." The DSA aims to do that via tighter rules around disinformation, illegal content, and transparent advertising. Those last two, not controversial. That first one, disinformation, is obviously the one that's gonna be pretty, uh, challenging. The DSA has been called a new constitution of the internet in an effort to shape the future of the online world. Some things the, uh, DSA covers, enforces VLOPs, a new term, Very Large Online Platforms, disclose how their algorithms work. They must give users the right to opt out of recommendation systems and profiling, they must share key data with researchers and authorities, they must cooperate with crisis response requirements, and they must perform external and internal audits. They want to force transparency on how content moderation decisions are made. That seems, uh, logical. They wanna force transparency, uh, on the ways advertising is targeted. That also seems reasonable. And then they want ways to flag illegal content. Obviously, obligations, uh, around, uh, protecting minors, I don't think anybody will debate those. But it forces them to cooperate with specialized trusted flaggers to identify and remove this illegal content. I don't know who those people would be. Freyberg, you had some thoughts.

   2. CPChamath Palihapitiya52:50

      My thoughts are that the era of the open internet as a decentralized technology platform for the benefit of individuals and not to be overseen and run by governments is over. The Digital Services Act, I think, is one of the most overreaching threats to any sort of open, transparent, democratic opportunity on the internet. The idea of the open internet, the idea of creating a network of computers that could share information and make services available to individuals around the world freely, uncensored, and in an easy-to-access way was the reason that the internet has transformed society, improved productivity, and provided extraordinary benefits. The Digital Services Act is an example of a government seeing that a decentralized technology... The internet itself is meant to be a decentralized technology. There's no central servers. They are all part of a network of computers, that anyone on the network can access anything else on the network. Blockchain obviously is the more modern, kind of exciting, you know, decentralized technology concept that is meant to avoid the scrutiny, the oversight, and the control by central governments or, or central authorities of any sort. And the language in the Digital Services Act, I think, got squeezed through in a way that most of the people that I'm guessing passed this Digital Services Act don't fully comprehend the implications of some of the decisions that they're making. It can be easily framed as, "This is good for people. You cannot sell illegal content online. You cannot sell illegal goods and services. We're trying to safeguard young people." But the protection of minors means that you can no longer do personalized web experiences for anyone under 18, which means you need to know the age of everyone, and now your web experience, if you're a kid, is not gonna be personalized. The overreach gets even worse when they say, "We can now go in and run evaluations..."... of the algorithms and allow open access to your data to third party researchers to get into your systems and look at how you guys are running the services that you're offering on the internet. So not only are you no longer allowed to have an open internet where people can provide whatever services they want to provide, but if you're on the internet, you now have to make your service and the inside part of your service available for scrutiny by governments. And so you have-

   3. JCJason Calacanis55:28

      And researchers.

   4. CPChamath Palihapitiya55:29

      ... yeah.

   5. JCJason Calacanis55:29

      Who are these researchers? Sounds like a Stasi type thing. Yeah, yeah.

   6. CPChamath Palihapitiya55:32

      And the way, well, the way it's written, it gives this commission, as the primary regulator, effectively a lot of leeway in deciding who, what, where, and how they can go into companies, go into individual servers, individual computers. He, I could run an individual company on my computer at home, and it gives this government the legal right in the EU to go into my computer and pull information out of my computer and scrutinize it and make decisions about what I'm doing and whether or not I'm compliant with whatever the commission's enforcement standards are of that day. I mean, this is about as 1984 as you can get, and it's a real serious threat. I don't think people are recognizing the second and third order effects of what this is going to do over time to internet services, to the quality of experience we get on the internet, and to the role that government is now going to play in policing, scrutinizing, and providing restricted access to content and services for each individual that wants to use the internet.

   7. DFDavid Friedberg56:27

      But it's important to say, if you're a European. It'll just make Europe even more of a place you go to vacation and never to live.

   8. JCJason Calacanis56:33

      Yeah.

   9. DFDavid Friedberg56:34

      Right? I mean, it's not, this... We're not talking about America, right? We're talking about Europe.

   10. CPChamath Palihapitiya56:37

       This is all the changes that are going to happen inside of Google, which is going to affect more than just the EU users because of the requests and the demands of the EU. And so, you know, the, the, the services that you are going to get around the world are going to be affected by this EU compliance regime and it's going to be dynamic. It's a commission, basically a bunch of individuals that get to decide who, what, where, and how.

   11. DSDavid Sacks56:59

       That's right.

   12. CPChamath Palihapitiya56:59

       And that's gonna, that's gonna create a really scary, scary situation where a bunch of people who are gonna have their own motivations, their own political leanings, their own objectives, they're going to be able to leverage their particular role in applying-

   13. DFDavid Friedberg57:17

       But can I, but can I, can I say something?

   14. CPChamath Palihapitiya57:17

       ... their particular biases to internet services.

   15. DFDavid Friedberg57:19

       We saw Canada do something similar and Facebook's reaction was-

   16. CPChamath Palihapitiya57:23

       And Google pulled out, yeah.

   17. DFDavid Friedberg57:24

       And Facebook's reaction was, "We're not going to syndicate links." So, I don't know. I, I would go back to another argument you make a lot, which is... Which I agree with, which is, the free market will act rationally here and if Google deprecates a bunch of features and/or completely pulls out of Europe, that'll be the death knell for these kinds of decisions because then other governments and other people will see the cost of trying to get this kind of control. I think the bigger issue in a moment like this is Europe has such a checkered past on these things, which is that they somehow try to find this moral high ground and there is just this overreach and this quasi-central planning that just never works. And so this is another example of it. I would encourage all for-profit companies to make the practical decision.

   18. CPChamath Palihapitiya58:16

       Oh, can you imagine Google's decision-making here? They've got thousands of employees in Europe. They make billions of dollars in revenue in the market. It's such a difficult situation to be in.

   19. DFDavid Friedberg58:25

       Not if what you're saying is true. Not if what you're saying is this is the threat of the internet. I think it'll be very easy for Larry and Sergey to say, "Cut it and move on."

   20. DSDavid Sacks58:33

       No.

   21. JCJason Calacanis58:33

       Mm-hmm.

   22. DSDavid Sacks58:33

       I, I... Europe is too big a market for Google or any other major tech company to exit. There's just no way. What they're going to do is comply.

   23. DFDavid Friedberg58:40

       There won't be a market.

   24. DSDavid Sacks58:41

       Well, hold on a second. What, what this new DSA rule does is apply penalties to social networks for not censoring what they call illegal speech, which is whatever speech they say it is. So, Freiberg's right, there's going to be some sort of committee in Brussels that basically sends out takedown requests now to all these social networks.

   25. CPChamath Palihapitiya58:59

       Yeah, it's the DSA Commission. Yeah, it's crazy.

   26. DSDavid Sacks59:00

       The DSA Commission. So-

   27. CPChamath Palihapitiya59:01

       Yeah.

   28. DSDavid Sacks59:02

       Europe, again, is just too big an area not to serve. And then what could happen is that because it's easier for companies just to have one approach where they can, there is a risk that these same policies get applied in the US. Th- that is what happened with privacy. Remember, Europe went first with GDPR and then a lot of those regulations-

   29. JCJason Calacanis59:20

       To California.

   30. DSDavid Sacks59:20

       ... came to America. Now, the First Amendment may stand in the way here, but there is some risk that tech companies of their own accord decide that it's cheaper and easier to comply with the European regime everywhere than try to parse their service in different markets. I'm just saying that's a risk.
6. 1:06:05 – 1:23:10

   GLP-1: the second biggest hype cycle of 2023

   1. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:06:05

      Let's move on to our final topic. Second-largest hype cycle of 2023, perhaps GLP-1s. Uh, Chamath, you, uh, uh, brought this up in our group chat, so maybe you could tee it up.

   2. JCJason Calacanis1:06:17

      Well, I was just interested in understanding everything that's been happening around GLPs, mostly because it just seems like people think it's a panacea. We have a lot of our friends... Like Jason, you were the one that said this, in our poker group, like four of the 12 or 13 regulars are on it. Is that right?

   3. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:06:40

      I think it was four of like, yeah, four of 12 people were on it.

   4. JCJason Calacanis1:06:43

      Four.

   5. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:06:43

      Yeah. It was a, a third, yeah.

   6. JCJason Calacanis1:06:45

      And then, and then I got this really interesting chart. Nick, y- y- you may want to put this up. It basically showed how the GLP-1 market was tracking very similar to the AI market in terms of the hype.

   7. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:07:01

      Okay.

   8. JCJason Calacanis1:07:02

      Which is, if you separated companies as a basket of people who were positively affected by GLP-1s, like Lilly and Novo Nordisk, and you had a basket of companies that were disrupted by GLP-1s, those would be like Dexcom or DaVita or folks like that, it eerily mimics the same hype cycle around AI, which is, there's those businesses that seem to be feeding the hype train around AI, and then all of these companies that theoretically will be disrupted. And it just brought up to me that there's this incredible...

   9. DFDavid Friedberg1:07:37

      ... market movement here, where I think people think that these GLP-1s are a solution to everything, and I thought it was just an important thing to discuss because scientifically, the mechanism of action is still a little questionable and murky. On top of that, I think we don't know physiologically what the real long-term ramifications of taking these things are. There's still a lot of mixed evidence around the total amount of weight loss you can lose, the percentage of muscle versus fat that you lose. And so yeah, I just thought it was important for us to talk about it and see what people thought.

   10. DSDavid Sacks1:08:07

       This would be a- a- a- a- a basket spread trade. Here are the companies that win, here are the companies that loses, and look at that gap between the two, and it's exactly mimics people who would benefit from AI and people who would lose from AI.

   11. DFDavid Friedberg1:08:20

       Yeah, the GLP-1 hype, uh, the summary is the GLP-1 hype cycle is as overextended as the AI hype cycle.

   12. DSDavid Sacks1:08:29

       Hmm.

   13. DFDavid Friedberg1:08:30

       So we should probably separate the wheat from the chaff and start by understanding what GLP-1s are, because I'm sure there's a lot of people in our listening community who are on this stuff.

   14. DSDavid Sacks1:08:39

       Sure.

   15. DFDavid Friedberg1:08:39

       They should really probably understand.

   16. DSDavid Sacks1:08:41

       Well, if that's, uh, where you think we should go next, we should then throw it to the sultan of science himself, David Freiberg explained to us, uh, while we prepare our Uranus jokes, GLP-1s.

   17. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:08:56

       Uh, these drugs have been around for a while. They're small peptides, little proteins that bind to this GLP receptor in your gut that causes insulin to be released from your pancreas and triggers a couple of other hormones that reduce your hunger and appetite. So basically gets you to eat less.

   18. DSDavid Sacks1:09:17

       And your brain.

   19. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:09:19

       And your brain. And it's effectively a way to make you feel not hungry, and you n- you're, you can then run a calorie deficit. And when you run a calorie deficit, your body starts starving and it starts burning other parts of your body besides the- the glucose it can get out of the stomach, where you would otherwise have food, and ends up in your blood, and it starts, uh, generating energy from your stored body fat and your stored, and your muscle mass. So these have been around for a while. Novo Nordisk is the, uh, developer of two of the- the main drugs, and here's a- a- a chart of Novo Nordisk stock price. You can see that in the last-

   20. DSDavid Sacks1:09:57

       (laughs)

   21. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:09:58

       ... five years, their stock has five Xed. They've basically gone from, you know, call it a $60 billion company to a $350 billion company in five years, uh, largely on the- the back of the promise of this drug. So these drugs have been around for a while, and there's actually one that's been on the market for a long time, but it only causes 5% body mass loss, so 5% weight loss. So people are like, "Oh, it's not that great." It didn't really get widely adopted. Then this new class, they added a little side chain, they added another little molecule to the peptide, and as a result, it didn't get degraded as fast, and it was far more bioactive in the body and caused a much, uh, greater benefit. And so suddenly, people on these drugs started to see massive weight loss, massive improvement in diabetes. And- and metabolic health all moves together, so as you burn body fat, as you have less glucose in your blood, your- your- your metabolic condition improves. The problem is when you're starving normally, if you were to just stop eating, you would typically see that your body starts burning, first of all, the glucose, and then it burns off to glycogen in your muscles, which is the next energy store. Once that's gone, your body starts burning fat. And as it's burning more fat, it also says, "Hey, I need to get these other molecules which I'm not getting just from the fat. I need muscle." And your body actually starts burning muscle, and that's how your brain gets energy that it needs when you're starving is actually primarily from the degradation of- of muscle tissue. Uh, so normally, if you're just starving yourself, you'll see a ratio of weight loss where it's about 20% coming from lean muscle mass. In some of the studies that have been done on these GLP-1 agonists, we're seeing up to 40% of the weight loss coming from lean muscle mass, uh, being burnt off. So Jason, I don't know if you've done a DEXA scan, 'cause I think you've- you've-

   22. DSDavid Sacks1:11:38

       Yeah.

   23. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:11:38

       ... said publicly that you've tried it, right? I mean-

   24. DSDavid Sacks1:11:40

       Yeah.

   25. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:11:40

       ... you should check, you should check out what your lean muscle mass is versus, um, uh, your fat composition in your body. I don't know if you have it from before, but this has been-

   26. DSDavid Sacks1:11:49

       Yeah, no, I- I have, yeah. Yeah.

   27. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:11:50

       And this has been one of the concerns. Uh, obviously, if you're not working out, and you're not, you know, doing what you need to eat protein and build muscle, you're gonna be burning through a lot of that muscle mass. And so that's problem number one that's arisen that- that people are concerned about. The other one that's- that's really, I don't know if it's concerning or not, but when people go off these drugs, they gain the weight back-

   28. DSDavid Sacks1:12:10

       Hmm.

   29. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:12:11

       ... in a very quick way, and there's two reasons for this. One is if you haven't actually changed your behavior, you haven't changed your exercise patterns, and- and you suddenly have the appetite suppressing drug taken out of your system, you start eating more food again. And when you've been in a state of starvation, your metabo- your- your metabolism, your baseline metabolism goes down. So instead-

   30. DSDavid Sacks1:12:31

       Yeah.

Episode duration: 1:28:01