首页  >>  来自播客: All-In Podcast 更新   反馈

E135: Wagner rebels, SCOTUS ends AA, AI M&A, startups gone bad, spacetime warps & more

发布时间 2023-07-01 10:31:06    来源

摘要

(0:00) Bestie intros: Friedberg fills in as moderator! (2:45) Wagner Group rebellion (23:15) SCOTUS strikes down Affirmative Action (51:03) Databricks acquires MosaicML for $1.3B, Inflection raises $1.3B (1:09:35) IRL shuts down after faking 95% of users, Byju's seeks to raise emergency $1B as founder control in jeopardy (1:26:38) Science Corner: Understanding the NANOGrav findings Follow the besties: https://twitter.com/chamath https://linktr.ee/calacanis https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/ukraine-counteroffensive-western-assessment/index.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-wagner-russia-treason-coup-b2363430.html https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-rating-russia https://www.levada.ru/en/ratings https://twitter.com/MatreshkaRF/status/1673209794608365570 https://www.csis.org/blogs/post-soviet-post/la-vie-en-rose-why-kremlin-blacklisted-levada-center https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/world/africa/central-african-republic-wagner-africa-syria.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-rejects-affirmative-action-at-colleges-says-schools-cant-consider-race-in-admission.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1674426520100814848 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361 https://www.wsj.com/articles/databricks-strikes-1-3-billion-deal-for-generative-ai-startup-mosaicml-fdcefc06 https://www.snowflake.com/blog/snowflake-acquires-neeva-to-accelerate-search-in-the-data-cloud-through-generative-ai https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2023/06/29/inflection-ai-raises-1-billion-for-chatbot-pi https://www.theinformation.com/articles/social-app-irl-which-raised-200-million-shuts-down-after-ceo-misconduct-probe https://www.theinformation.com/articles/softbank-backed-messaging-app-irl-says-it-has-20-million-users-some-employees-have-doubts-about-that https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-27/byju-s-seeks-to-raise-1-billion-to-sidestep-shareholder-revolt https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/27/prosus-byjus-markdown https://twitter.com/shaig/status/1673836979903950851 https://www.ft.com/content/b8a4214f-7f64-4d3a-97c4-4731f2effb0d https://twitter.com/chamath/status/1674469606746992651 https://pauloffit.substack.com/p/my-conversation-with-robert-f-kennedy https://www.quantamagazine.org/an-enormous-gravity-hum-moves-through-the-universe-20230628 https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/116 #allin #tech #news

GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......

中英文字稿  

This is going to be a feisty episode. Is it? Two of us are on Greenwich Mean Time. Two of us are on Pacific. J. Cal still asleep in his head. I'm good, actually. You good? I'm good. All right. Well, great to be back. Welcome to the All Conspiracy podcast where we repeat false statements and help spin them into tales of struggling against the establishment, the elite and the mainstream media. We will deliver to you the people, the Revolucion, against the powers that be. Unless it offends. Be still trying to get my invite for next week. We also enjoy. We also enjoy. Free bird mums. Mums of word. We also enjoy sharing with you fantastic stories of opulence. Let's be neutral. Opulence, leisure and benevolent greed. Here we go.
这将是一集激烈的节目。是吗？我们中有两个人在格林尼治标准时间，另外两个人在太平洋时区。J. Cal仍然在熟睡中。实际上我很好。你呢？我很好。好的。很高兴回来。欢迎来到《全面阴谋》播客，我们会重复假的陈述，并把它们变成与体制、精英和主流媒体斗争的故事。我们将向人们传达反对权力的Revolution，除非它有冒犯之处。我仍在努力争取下周的邀请。我们也喜欢...我们也喜欢...自由的鸟妈妈们。妈妈们的话语。我们也喜欢与您分享奢华、休闲和慈善贪婪的精彩故事。出发！

Joining me today are my co-hosts, General David Sacks, commander of the Fourth Battalion of the Internet Tweet Brigade. General welcome. Joining us from a remote location. From Moscow. Has there been an establishment takeover of the pod? I mean, what was the intro? Yeah. Every argument they make against us, you're basically just conceding is true. I know, exactly.
今天与我一同加入的是我的联合主持人，互联网推特旅团第四营的指挥官大卫·萨克斯将军。欢迎您，将军。他正在遥远地点莫斯科加入我们。这是不是意味着播客被建制派接管了？我的意思是，开场白是什么？是啊，他们提出的每一个反对理由，你基本上都默认为是真实的。我知道，完全正确。

From his 12th century Mediterranean castle, Il Duce, to Mark Polyapatia. Welcome to Moth. How is the Mediterranean diet treating you? Blue. Blue.
从他的12世纪地中海城堡，Il Duce，到马克·波利亚帕蒂亚。欢迎来到蛾。地中海饮食对您好吗？蓝色的。蓝色的。

And Emperor Nero Calicanis. Ruler over podcasts, paid events, entrepreneurial universities. Sent dental SPVs, Emperor. Thank you for letting me sit near throwing today. It's good to be here. Thank you. Dental SPVs. Shout out to my dentist. Well, you say king of STDs? What you said? SPVs. Oh, SPVs. Dental SPVs. Yeah. That's the thing with certain STDs where once you are king, you're going to be king for life. Absolutely. And it's said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with her. Love you guys. Nice. Queer up. Keep going.
埃米尔尼禄·卡利卡尼斯大帝，统治播客、付费活动和创业大学。发送了牙科SPVs的大帝。谢谢你让我今天坐在你旁边。很高兴能来到这里。谢谢。牙科SPVs。向我的牙医致敬。嗯，你说我是性病之王？你说什么？SPVs。哦，SPVs。牙科SPVs。是的。对于某些性病，一旦你成为王，你将终身为王。确实如此。我们说我们把它开源给粉丝们，他们对此疯狂地喜欢。爱你们。棒极了。继续加油。

The syndicate.com. Yeah. Thank you. You've been doing, you said five shows a week lately. Your voice is shot. I want us to starting to go. So I asked you if you'd moderate and you've, you thankfully said yes. I've got the energy I missed last week. I enjoyed listening to you guys with BG. Great episode. Sorry I couldn't join, but let's kick it off. That's funny. I still don't know what's the episode that I missed. He's not interested. He's like, I'm not on the show. I'm not interested. I don't have time to participate. I don't really have time to watch it.
The syndicate.com。Yeah。谢谢。你最近一直在做五个节目一周。你的声音很嘶哑。我想我们应该开始行动了。所以我问过你是否可以担任主持人，你幸运地答应了。我恢复了上周错过的精力。我很喜欢上次你们与BG的对话。很棒的一集。很抱歉我没能参与进来，但是让我们开始吧。太搞笑了。我还是不知道我错过了哪一集。他对这个不感兴趣。他说，我不在节目上，所以不对此感兴趣。我没有时间参与其中，也没有时间观看。

The truth is, Sacks, why don't you admit to everyone that you're in a show? You probably watch it four or five times. All right. So let's kick this off. Maybe you guys recorded right before the Wagner group attempted coup or potential coup or theorized coup began last week. So Sacks, you kind of sent that a text saying the show is already stale because you kind of missed that news cycle by publishing right after it started, but you recorded right before.
事实是，Sacks，为什么不向大家承认你在一个节目中呢？你可能会看四五次。好吧，让我们开始吧。也许你们在瓦格纳集团企图政变或潜在政变或理论政变开始的上周录制了节目。所以，Sacks，你发了一条短信说节目已经过时了，因为你在新闻周期开始后才发布，但你在录制之前就录制了。

So let's do just a quick recap of what happened with Russia, Ukraine, and particularly its Wagner, Wagner group rebellion. Last Friday, the Wagner group, which is a Russian paramilitary organization led by Yevgeny Pragogen launched what seemed like an armed insurrection against Russia. Wagner had occupied portions of Rostov on Don, a city of over a million people, a regional capital and headquarters of Russia's southern military district before setting off towards Moscow and then abruptly stopping, I think about 200 kilometers before reaching Moscow city. So at that point, there was supposedly a negotiation. The president of Belarus got involved and Pragogen decided to step down. Putin said, I'm not going to prosecute or I'm not going to prosecute you for these crimes. He was given immunity. And it was announced that all the members of the Wagner group were given the option of returning home or joining the Russian military and the Wagner group was going to be dissolved. So, Saxe, maybe you can kind of give us your summary of the events that took place. And then we'll talk a little bit about the interpretation of what we think this means for the conflict in Ukraine.
所以，让我们简单回顾一下俄罗斯、乌克兰以及其华agner集团叛乱发生的事情。上周五，由叶甫根尼·普拉戈琴（Yevgeny Pragogen）领导的俄罗斯准军事组织华agner集团似乎发起了一次武装叛乱，对抗俄罗斯政府。先占领了一个拥有一百多万人口的城市——顿河畔罗斯托夫，这是一个地区首府，也是俄罗斯南部军区的总部，然后朝着莫斯科进发，但在距离莫斯科约200公里的地方突然停下。在那一点上，据说进行了一次谈判。白俄罗斯总统介入其中，普拉戈琴决定辞职。普京说，“我不会指控你犯下这些罪行。”普拉戈琴获得了豁免权。随后宣布，华agner集团的所有成员可以选择返回家园或加入俄罗斯军队，而华agner集团将被解散。所以，Saxe，也许你可以对发生的事件给我们做个总结，然后我们再谈谈我们对乌克兰冲突的解读。

Well, you're right that this rebellion took place just after we dropped our last episode. And so everybody, both on Twitter and in the comments, was dunking on me for my take on last week's episode that the much hyped Ukrainian counter-offensive was not succeeding, that it was in fact failing. I think there's abundant evidence for that, which hasn't changed even CNN had written an article basically supporting the idea that the counter-offensive was not living up to what had been promised. And so everyone was in the comments saying that my take had basically aged like milk. And this armed rebellion or mutiny by Pragogen was evidence that the Russian regime was about to collapse, that Russia was in fact on the verge of civil war. And you saw the exact same people who had oversold the counter-offensive now overselling this mutiny as something that would bring down the Russian regime and the war. And of course, that did not happen. It was certainly a highly unusual event. And I've read takes now from every different corner of the internet about what it was and what took place. You have people speculating that this is at all staged. I do not believe that. I do believe that it was an insurrection or mutiny by Pragogen.
嗯，你说得对，这次叛乱正好发生在我们上次节目播出之后。所以无论是在Twitter上还是在评论区，每个人都在嘲笑我对上周的节目的看法，即备受瞩目的乌克兰反攻并没有取得成功，事实上是失败了。我认为有充分的证据证明这一点，即使CNN也写了一篇文章基本支持反攻并没有达到预期的想法。因此，每个人都在评论中说我的观点已经像牛奶一样过时了。而普拉戈金的武装叛乱证明俄罗斯政权即将崩溃，俄罗斯实际上处于内战的边缘。你可以看到，那些曾经过度宣传反攻的人现在也在过度宣传这次叛乱，将其视为会推翻俄罗斯政权和战争的事件。当然，这并没有发生。这肯定是一次非常不寻常的事件。我已经阅读了来自互联网各个角落对于此事的各种看法。有人猜测这是否是一场预谋好的表演，但我不相信。我相信这是普拉戈金的叛乱。

I think the trigger for it was the fact that his Wagner organization was being merged in with the Ministry of Defense and the regular Russian army and his men were all being made to sign contracts with the Ministry of Defense. That would have resulted in a giant loss of income and status for Pragogen simultaneously. For months now, he's been criticizing the Ministry of Defense specifically the Minister of Defense, Shoy Gu and the Chief General of the General Staff, Jarasimov. So he's been vocally critical of them. And I think that this basically erupted into a mutiny by him where he basically tried to leverage his position. Like you said, he marched what they now think are about 8,000 men, which is about a quarter of Wagner into Rostov on Don. He then took the Ministry headquarters and sent about 3,000 of his men on a convoy to Moscow.
我认为导致这一情况的触发因素是他的瓦格纳组织被并入国防部和俄罗斯常规军，并且他的手下都被迫与国防部签订合同。这将导致普拉戈根同时失去巨额收入和地位。几个月来，他一直批评国防部，特别是国防部长肖伊·谷和总参谋长亚拉西莫夫。因此，他公开批评了他们。我认为这基本上演变成了他发动叛乱，试图利用自己的地位。正如你所说的，他带领现在他们认为大约有8,000人（大约是瓦格纳的四分之一）进入顿河畔罗斯托夫，并接管了国防部总部，然后派遣约3,000名手下的车队前往莫斯科。

I think that although this is probably best described as a mutiny, I think that it did have coup optionality to it. I think that Pragogen was seeking to find out how much support Putin had and who might join him. And he had put out a number of statements that I think from the Russian regime's point of view could be described as seditious that morning.
我认为，尽管这可能最好被描述为一次叛变，但我认为它确实具备政变的可能性。我认为普拉戈根希望弄清楚普京获得了多少支持，还有谁可能会加入他。他发表了一系列的声明，我认为从俄罗斯政权的角度来看，这些声明可以被描述为煽动性的，发生在那个早晨。

And there's a lot of evidence that he staged this attack on his base. He claimed that there was a missile attack by the Ministry of Defense and that's what launched this march for justice. And in his comments, he was careful not to criticize Putin directly, but he had a lot to say about the Ministry of Defense and the overall conduct of the war. And it was, I think, harshly critical indirectly of Putin. And I think he was looking to see who might support him. And what happened is that on the way to Moscow during this convoy, nobody supported him. In fact, all the statements came out from the other generals, including Sir Vikin, including all the regional governors of members of the Duma and other important figures in Russian society. And there wasn't a single person willing to publicly support Pragogen.
有很多证据表明他策划了对他基地的袭击。他声称国防部发动了一次导弹袭击，这引发了这次为正义而行的游行。在他的评论中，他小心翼翼地不直接批评普京，但他对国防部和整个战争的行为有很多话要说。我认为，这是对普京的间接尖锐批评。我认为他想看看谁会支持他。在这次车队前往莫斯科的途中，没有人支持他。事实上，包括斯维金在内的其他将军，包括所有地方州长、杜马成员和俄罗斯社会中的其他重要人物都发表了声明。没有一个人愿意公开支持普拉戈金。

And that's when Putin went on TV called this basically an active treason and a stab in the back. At that point, I think Pragogen's options were pretty limited. And he basically took a deal that was brokered by Lukashenko in which he would go into exile in Belarus in exchange for basically being allowed to live. That was basically the deal that was ultimately cut.
就在那时，普京上电视称这基本上是一种积极的叛国行为和背后的背叛。在那一刻，我想普拉戈根的选择非常有限。他基本上接受了由卢卡申科促成的协议，在这个协议中他将流亡到白俄罗斯，以换取基本上被允许生活。这基本上就是最终达成的协议。

And so I think where things stand today is that although I think this was an embarrassment and a black eye for the Russian regime, it never looks good for a regime to have any kind of mutiny or insurrection. And I think that it does raise questions that Putin's now going to have to answer to his various allies and supporters about how stable his regime is. I think ultimately Putin has ended up in a place of consolidating Russian society behind him. Like I said, there were no power centers that supported this mutiny. They all rallied to Putin's defense and the people of Russia, even though Pragogen is a popular figure being kind of a war hero from the Battle of Bakhmut, the Russian society supported Putin. I think he's at something like 80% poll numbers.
所以我认为当前的局势是，虽然我认为这对俄罗斯政权来说是一次尴尬和打击，任何政权发生叛乱或暴动都不会有利于形象。而且我认为这引发了普京必须向他的各种盟友和支持者回答他的政权有多稳定的问题。我认为最终普京成功巩固了俄罗斯社会的支持。就像我说的，没有一个权力中心支持这次叛乱。他们都团结起来为普京辩护，即使普拉戈金是一位在巴赫穆特战役中的战争英雄，俄罗斯社会也支持普京。我认为他的支持率大约是80%。

So I think where things stand. Well, like Levada Center, which is an independent polling agency, for example, these are not the Russian regime's own numbers. No, no, wait, would you say in a poll that you don't support Putin? Well, I don't know how Levada Center, what their methodology is, but these numbers, when the numbers are bad or cited by Western sources. But there are other forms of evidence too. You may have seen this video that went viral over the past few days of this song that's now the number one chart buster in Russia, where it's this very patriotic Russian song where they're basically singing, I am Russian, that's sort of the main chorus. Nick, can you pull up the song? I'd like to see this, please. Coming at you. 95.5. I love Russia. Oh my God. This is some serious propaganda. Wow. Yeah. I mean, that looks like a pretty good party. If you look up the lyrics to the song, the English translation of the lyrics, that just if it is, I'm basically proud to be Russian and I don't care who doesn't like it. That's basically the lyrics of it. How do you get invited to that party? I got so many jokes, I'm not going to make a video. You got to be careful. Be careful here, folks. You got to be careful here. Why? It looks like a fun party. It's a catchy song. I mean, I love to dress up and show up. Tell me where to show up, Putin.
所以我认为现状如何。嗯，就像独立民意调查机构列瓦达中心一样，例如，这些不是俄罗斯政权自己的数字。不，不，等一下，你会在一项民意调查中表示你不支持普京吗？嗯，我不知道列瓦达中心的方法是什么，但是当数字不好或者被西方媒体引用时，这些数字通常会出现。但也有其他形式的证据。你可能已经看过这个在过去几天中走红的视频，这是一首现在在俄罗斯冲榜第一的爱国主义歌曲，他们基本上唱着“我是俄罗斯人”，这是主要的副歌。尼克，你能播放这首歌吗？我想看一下。来了。95.5电台。我爱俄罗斯。哦天啊。这是一种严重的宣传。哇哦。是的。我是说，那看起来是一个相当不错的派对。如果你查看歌曲的歌词，英文翻译的歌词只是说，我为我是俄罗斯人感到骄傲，我不在乎谁不喜欢。那基本上就是歌词的意思。如何才能被邀请参加那个派对？我有那么多笑话，我不会拍摄视频。你得小心。大家得小心。为什么？看起来是个好玩的派对。这是一首很容易上口的歌。我是说，我喜欢打扮好然后出现在派对上。告诉我在哪里出现，普京。

I think the point here is that Russian society is united behind the state and wanting to fight this war. And I think that part of the reason why Progosians mutiny was so oversold as an imminent coup that would bring about the collapse of the Putin regime and of the Russian war effort and of their front line is because that we, since the beginning of this war, we've had this narrative that if we applied enough pressure to Russia that there would be a palace intrigue and a palace coup and that liberal forces inside of Russia would rise up and topple the dictator, Putin, and basically get them out of this war. And I think what's happened is fairly predictable, but it's the opposite of that, which is the Russian people are rallying around the flag and rallying around Putin, the war leader. And they are a patriotic people just like the Ukrainians. And I think both these countries that both the Russians and the Ukrainians are a proud people. And I think they're in a fight to the death. And I think that both countries, okay, regard this as existential. And we have basically stuck ourselves in the middle of this fight to the death between these two countries. And I don't see this working out very well. Okay.
我认为这里的重点是俄罗斯社会团结在国家后面，希望打赢这场战争。我认为Progosians的叛乱被夸大为即将到来的政变，将导致普京政权、俄罗斯战争努力和前线的崩溃，部分原因是因为从这场战争开始，我们一直都有这样的叙事，即如果我们向俄罗斯施加足够的压力，就会发生权力斗争和宫廷政变，俄罗斯内部的自由力量将起来推翻独裁者普京，基本上让他们走出这场战争。我认为发生的事情是可以预料的，但与此相反的是，俄罗斯人民团结在国旗和普京战争领导者周围。他们像乌克兰人一样爱国。我认为俄罗斯和乌克兰都是自豪的民族，他们处于生死对决中。我认为这两个国家都把这看作是生死攸关的问题。而我们则将自己置身于这两个国家的生死对决之中，我不认为这会有好的结局。

So I will make an admission, I consider myself a modestly well read person, modestly well informed. I had never heard of the Wagner group or Pragosian prior to this coup attempt last week.
所以，我要承认一件事，我认为自己读书和信息掌握都还算不错。然而，在上周的政变未遂之前，我从未听说过瓦格纳集团或普拉戈西安。

Chama, Jay Cal had you guys heard of this person before and the Wagner group? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, well, maybe I'm an idiot or just not interested.
查马、杰伊，你们之前听说过这个人或瓦格纳集团吗？是的。是的。唉，也许我是个白痴，或者只是对此不感兴趣。

I think what was so surprising was like how out of the blue, the story seemed to be last week that there was this disagreement between this person that commanded this paramilitary organization who then turned around against Putin and stood up against him and marched back towards Moscow. And it felt to me like it came a little bit out of the blue and was such like a weird kind of shocking event.
我认为令人惊讶的是上周突然间出现了这个故事，说的是这个指挥一支准军事组织的人突然间反对普京，站了起来，向莫斯科行进。对我来说，这个事件有一点出乎意料，非常奇怪而震惊。

Did it feel kind of like that to you guys that there was surprising instability and the surprising potential revolution happening locally? I think stepping back here and just looking at the news cycle. Really, I don't think many people expected this. This was a wild card. And so people could be humble in their belief of like how much they actually understand about what's going on there.
对你们来说，是否感觉就像是突如其来的不稳定和出乎意料的潜在革命正在当地发生？我觉得对于这个问题，我们应该退一步，仅仅看看新闻报道。实际上，我想没有很多人预料到这一点，这是个未知数。所以人们对自己对于那里正在发生的事情到底了解多少应该持谦虚态度。

The Russian soldiers are not in favor of this war. This is a war that's very unpopular in Russia actually. And for the Ukraine, having been invaded by Russia, they're fighting for their land and they're going to they are much more motivated.
俄罗斯士兵对这场战争并不赞成。事实上，在俄罗斯，这场战争非常不受欢迎。而对于乌克兰，被俄罗斯入侵后，他们正在为自己的土地而战，因此动力更加强烈。

I wouldn't believe any of this propaganda, but this is a bit of a roshock test. Everybody on the left got on Twitter and said, this is the end of Putin. He's going to rise up in the streets and they overplayed that, you know, angle of the story. And then of course, the right or people who are pro Russian or anti the West backing this war are going to take the other side, preberg, they're going to take the side of, you know, Oh, everybody loves Russia. 80% of people are voting for this. It's ridiculous to think that anybody in Russia is going to answer. Do you like Putin? Do you support Putin on a survey?
我不会相信这些宣传，但这有点像罗夏克测试。左派的人都在推特上说，这是普京的末日。他们认为他会在街头起义，他们过分夸大了这个故事的角度。当然，支持俄罗斯或反对西方支持这场战争的右派或者其他人会站在另一边，他们会选择相反的立场，会说，哦，每个人都喜欢俄罗斯。80%的人都投票支持这场战争。认为在俄罗斯有人会回答调查问题——你喜欢普京吗？你支持普京吗？就是荒谬的。

Can you imagine a Putin's a murderous dictator who kills all of his enemies and he controls through violence? Nobody's answering a survey correctly. This, you know, top song is complete propaganda. Putin has control of the entire media apparatus there.
你能想象一个普京是一个杀害所有敌人并通过暴力控制的暴君吗？没有人正确地回答这项调查。这首热门歌曲完全是宣传。普京控制着整个媒体机构。

What this showed actually, if you step back and you look at it, go to the party, though, if you were invited, well, I mean, are there going to be potential LPs there? Last week, but I insisted joke, folks, but stepping back, if you look at modern day dictators, they tend to stay in power for about three decades, Putin's in his third. And I think we're going to see in the next 10 years, Putin lose power and he's going to be out of power.
实际上，若你退后一步并观察，去参加聚会，如果你被邀请的话，那么，我的意思是，那里会有潜在的长期伙伴吗？上周，但我坚持开个玩笑吧，朋友们，但退后一步看，如果你看看现代独裁者，他们往往在任职约三十年，普京已经进入了第三个十年。我认为在接下来的十年里，普京将失去权力并离开政权。

And when we look back on it, it's going to be one of two causes. It's going to be either cancer, which, you know, the speculation is that cancer and that's why he disappears from view because he might be getting treatment. And we'll look back on us that the end of his power will be his control of Russia, which he controlling these controlling through violence and fear of violence and threat of violence is exhausting. You have to be paranoid. And that's why it generally doesn't last that long, especially compared to the West, where we have a democracy and people last about a half decade.
当我们回顾这件事时，将会有两个原因之一。第一个可能是癌症，因为有传言说他可能因为接受治疗而从公众视野中消失。而当我们回顾这段历史时，他权力的终结将是他对俄罗斯的控制。他通过暴力和恐惧来维持控制，而这种威胁暴力的方式令人疲惫不堪。要保持警觉，这种控制通常持续时间不长，特别是与西方相比，我们拥有民主制度，人们在权力中的持续时间大约为五年左右。

He will look back on his end, which will be in the next 10 years, either through cancer or through his invasion of Ukraine. This is the biggest blender he's ever made. And this is a really crazy sign that somebody would actually attempt or even float a coup is insane. He's murdered every single person who has ever even challenged his authority in a minor way.
他将回顾自己的结局，这个结局将在接下来的十年中出现，不管是通过癌症还是通过他入侵乌克兰。这是他曾经犯下的最大错误。而某人竟然企图或甚至传言发动政变，这是一个非常疯狂的迹象。他谋杀了每一个即便稍微挑战他权威的人。

The fact that his, one of his right hand men, this is one of his tight inner circle. The fact that one of the people in his tight inner circle would actually start heading towards Moscow is insane. So to say this wasn't a big deal and Putin's now consolidated power and everybody's in the street dancing, that's just not true. It's just six. This is just simply not true. I never said it wasn't a big deal. I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the mids on Twitter. I never mentioned your name.
他的右臂之一、他亲密的核心圈之一，竟然开始朝着莫斯科前进，这个事实太疯狂了。所以说这不是一件大事，普京现在巩固了权力，每个人都在街上跳舞，这根本不真实。这只是谣言。我从未说过这不是一件大事。我不是在说你的事。我是在说Twitter上的言论。我从未提到你的名字。

I think that your point, J Cal at the beginning, that this doesn't really seem to change anyone's point of view on the outlook. Your point of view sounds like it's the same as it was a week ago. Sacks, your point of view is probably the same as it was a week ago.
我认为，J Cal在一开始时提到的，这似乎并没有改变任何人的观点。你的观点听起来好像和一周前没有什么不同。Sacks，你的观点可能和一周前一样。

I think there are a couple of takeaways here. First of all, they've had polling of opinion in Russia for a long time. And like I said, when the polls go the way that the Western sources want, no one questions their accuracy. Again, I don't know exactly the methodology, but Levada Center is an independent pollster that Western publications do trust. I hear them repeat it over and over again. And by their methodology, which I assume hasn't changed, I think Putin's popularity before the war is around 65%.
我认为这里有几个要点。首先，俄罗斯长期以来一直有舆论调查。就像我说的，当调查结果符合西方来源的期望时，没有人会质疑其准确性。再次强调，我不知道具体的调查方法，但列瓦达中心是一个西方出版物信任的独立民意测验机构。我一遍又一遍听到他们重复这一点。根据他们尚未变化的调查方法，我认为战争之前普京的受欢迎程度约为65%。

Now they're showing it at about 83%. Jason, you may not like the war. And I certainly don't like the war. Nobody likes the war. But I think it is simply a fact that the Russian people have rallied around the flag and they do support this war and Putin as the leader.
现在显示的支持率约为83%。Jason，你可能不喜欢这场战争。而我绝对不喜欢这场战争。没有人喜欢战争。但我认为俄罗斯人民团结在国旗下，支持这场战争和普京作为领导者，这只是一个事实。

Now I do think he has egg on his face here from this Pragosian uprising. In terms of, did I see this coming? No, I didn't have this on my bingo card. I don't think anybody else did either. However, did I know who Pragosian is? Certainly. I mean, I've been tracking Pragosian statements since around February. He's been vocally criticizing the Ministry of Defense, specifically Shorgu and Jourasimov in increasingly insubordinate and you could argue even seditious ways. I'm really kind of surprised in a way that he wasn't dealt with before this. And I'm sure that the Kremlin is kicking itself for probably not dealing with it sooner.
现在我确实认为他在这次普拉戈西亚起义中颜面尽失。在我意识到此事之前，看到这个局面我一点都没有预料到。我相信其他人也是如此。然而，我知道普拉戈西亚是谁。事实上，我从大约二月份开始关注普拉戈西亚的言论。他一直在以越来越无礼甚至可以说是叛逆的方式公开批评国防部，尤其是肖尔古和乔拉西莫夫。我真的有点惊讶他在这之前没有被处理过。我敢肯定克里姆林宫现在一定后悔没有早点处理这个问题。

But in terms of why he's still alive, I think that Putin had a really tough decision to make about you quash this rebellion completely, which would have led to horrific images of violence, potentially Moscow or Russian, Russian, Russian, Russian killing Russians. That might have actually led the Russian front to question itself or collapse. So I think he did the expedient thing, which is he cut a deal. He got Lukashenko to help broker it and he cut a deal. And I think at the end of the day, I think that he made the cool headed decision that was in his and in Russian interest, which was to avoid this to getting to the point of a bloody violent insurrection.
但就为何他还活着而言，我认为普京在关于是否完全镇压这场叛乱的问题上做出了非常艰难的决定，完全镇压可能会导致暴力事件的可怕影像，潜在地造成莫斯科或俄罗斯人对俄罗斯人的杀戮。这可能会导致俄罗斯内部对自身的行动产生质疑，甚至崩溃。因此，我认为他采取了权宜之计，达成了协议。他让卢卡申科协助促成协议。我认为最终他做出了冷静的决定，这是符合他和俄罗斯利益的决定，即避免事态发展至血腥的暴力起义的程度。

Okay, Tamov, any point of view, shift for you coming out of the Pragosian event of the last week on Russia, Ukraine? I mean, I want to know how much he got paid to stop marching towards Moscow. Yeah. I mean, it is like a mob. It must have been a lot. Not bad for a guy that was what Putin's caterer a few years ago, right? He started a catering business. Guy spent nine years in jail. This guy's life. He's been nine years in jail. It's like the sopranos. He went to jail for nine years for selling illegal hot dogs or something and all of a sudden, 30 years later, because I've just paid billions of dollars to basically stop his paramilitary group from taking over one of the largest countries in the world. It's not largest. Nuclear arsenal in the world.
好的，Tamov，你对上周俄罗斯、乌克兰的Pragosian事件有什么观点？我的意思是，我想知道他收了多少钱才停止向莫斯科进军。是啊，就像一个黑帮组织。肯定不少钱。对于几年前还是普京的餐饮供应商的那个人来说，这可不错。他创办了一个餐饮企业。这家伙在监狱里待了九年。他的人生就像剧集《黑道家族》。他因为卖非法热狗之类的东西坐了九年牢，然后30年后我只是花了数十亿美元才基本上阻止了他的准军事组织控制世界上最大的国家之一。不是最大的国家，是世界上最大的核武库。

Yeah. It's just so you know who this guy is. I mean, he really is the street thug that Putin is always accused of being. He was a street thug. He did go to jail. He was one of these guys who came up in Russia as a businessman when to be a businessman, you have to be so tough. Businessmen were getting murdered left and right. By gangsters, you almost have to be a gangster yourself. Apparently, he made some money in the supermarket chain business and that led him to create a catering business, which brought him to Putin's attention and he started catering for the Kremlin. He's sometimes called Putin chef. I don't think he was a chef himself. He was a guy who owned the business. And then from there, he was given the license to create this PMC, this private military corporation Wagner group. He wasn't the only founder of it. He had a co-founder who was actually the military man behind it. But Wagner became this group of mercenaries who do all sorts of business in Africa mainly, where they are working on behalf of governments there to protect mineral resources or oil wells, all sorts of things.
是的，这只是让你知道这个人是谁。我的意思是，他真的就是普京经常被指责的那个街头暴徒。他曾经是个街头暴徒，也曾坐过牢。他是在俄罗斯成为商人的时候崛起的那些人中的一员，当时做生意就必须要非常强硬。那时候商人们几乎左右逢源地被暴徒们谋杀。你差不多得成为一个暴徒才能成为一个商人。显然，他在超市连锁业务上赚了一些钱，这引起了普京的注意，于是他开始为克里姆林宫提供餐饮服务。人们有时候称他为“普京厨师”。我不认为他自己是个厨师，他只是这个业务的老板。然后，他被授予了创办这家私人军事公司“瓦格纳集团”的许可证。他并不是唯一的创始人，他有一个共同创始人，实际上是该公司的军事人员背后的推动者。但是瓦格纳成为了一群雇佣兵，主要在非洲从事各种业务，他们代表当地政府保护矿产资源或者油井等等。

So, you was a sopranos captain. Who would he be like, Phil Leotardo? Just like 20 years in jail comes out. I think it's sort of like John Gotti going against Michael Corleone. I think that Putin is sort of the very cold, rational guy with everything in his head who is very calculated and doesn't reveal much, more like a Michael Corleone. Whereas I think that he's emotional, erratic. He's been saying these statements for months here, which I don't see how they possibly lose cannon.
所以，你是黑帮的首领。他会像菲尔·利奥塔多吗？就像坐了20年牢一样出来。我觉得这有点像约翰·戈蒂与迈克尔·科里昂对峙。我认为普京有点像那种极冷静、理性、脑子里计算得非常准确的人，不会透露太多，更像迈克尔·科里昂。而我认为他情绪化、不稳定。他在这里说了几个月的话，我看不出他怎么可能像个失控炮筒。

And the crazy thing though is that what you saw on Twitter and social media was unrestrained glee really delirium over the idea that Progosian might topple Putin and become the custodian of Russia's thousands of nuclear weapons. So, my comment on this whole thing is be careful what you wish for. Why in the world would Americans want that? We'd be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. I've been saying since the beginning of the war that this fantasy that Putin is going to be toppled by a palace coup and you're going to replace him with a Navalny or something like that or going to get Gorbachev 2.0. I said that was always unrealistic and what you're much more likely to end up with is an even worse dictator or a hardliner. And I think that is what would happen if Progosian had taken over, I think would have been much worse for the West.
然而，疯狂的是，在Twitter和社交媒体上所看到的是一种毫不掩饰的喜悦，对于Progosian有可能推翻普京并成为俄罗斯核武器的监护人的想法表现得异常狂喜。所以，我的评论是要小心你们所期望的。为什么美国人会希望这样的事情发生呢？我们会从地狱跳到火坑里去。我从战争开始就一直说，普京将会被内宫政变推翻，然后被像纳瓦尔尼这样的人物或者获得戈尔巴乔夫2.0这样的结果，我一直认为这种幻想是不现实的。更有可能的是，你们最终得到的是一个更糟糕的独裁者或者强硬派。我认为如果Progosian接管了，西方会面临更加严峻的局势。

The final point is what's the takeaway from here is I think this is going to put more pressure on Putin to conduct the war in a more violent way. I know that people already think that the war is horrible and violent, but Putin has been criticized by hardliners on his right for basically making the war a special military operation instead of an all-out war. And Progosian I think expected to find more support among the sort of ultra-nationalist in Russia and among the military who have been critical of Putin for waging the war in what they consider to be too half-hearted or an incomplete way. They would like to see this declare to be a war. They would like to see the full mobilization of Russian society. And this is the problem that I see now is that I think Putin already knew that this has to underscore for him, that this war is existential for him personally. If he loses at the end of not only his regime, but probably his life in Russia, and I think he's going to do whatever it takes to win this war. And I think you could see now over the next few months a full mobilization in Russia. And I think that this could lead us to the next point of escalation in this war. That is if this Ukrainian counter-offensive actually successful on some level. Right now it is not succeeding. So there's no reason for Putin to do that. But if this counter-offensive succeeds, you will see the next level of escalation.
最终的观点是，从这里得出的结论是，我认为这将给普京增加更多压力，使他以更暴力的方式进行战争。我知道人们已经认为这场战争是可怕和暴力的，但普京在他右翼派别中已经因为将战争变成特殊军事行动而受到批评，而不是全面战争。而普罗戈西安我认为本来期望在俄罗斯的超民族主义者和对普京在战争中采取的被认为太半心或不完全的方式持批评态度的军方中寻求更多支持。他们希望看到这被宣布为一场战争。他们希望看到俄罗斯社会的全面动员。我现在看到的问题是，我认为普京已经明白这对他个人来说是一场生死存亡的战争。如果他最终失败，不仅将失去他的统治，而且可能会失去在俄罗斯的生活，我认为他将不惜一切代价来赢得这场战争。我认为在接下来的几个月里，你可能会看到俄罗斯的全面动员。我认为这可能会导致战争升级的下一个阶段。如果这次乌克兰的反攻在某种程度上成功，现在它还没有成功，所以普京没有理由这样做。但如果这次反攻成功，你将会看到下一个升级点。

So Saks, you did a great job stringing six points together. I think Mikey takeaway is which is now 18 points you've made. So you can retire for the rest of the show. Mikey takeaway from your series of statements, however, is an important one which is to watch the potential escalation driven by Putin here. Any wrap-up, otherwise I'm going to move forward with this. I just have one statement thinking about this. Like there's a famous Sun Zu quote, the Supreme Order of the Wars to subdue the enemy without fighting, this is a big mistake and we need to make sure that we don't get into a war with Taiwan and China and China over Taiwan. Okay. We have to avoid these things. And then that's where Saks and I are in alignment. So into Calicanis, we heard it here first. Let's move forward with peace. I can only hope that the conflict ends soon, as I've always said.
Saks，你把六个观点串起来做得很好。我认为迈克的看法是你刚刚得出了18个观点，所以你可以在剩下的节目中退休了。然而，迈克从你的一系列陈述中得出的一个重要观点是要注意普京所带来的潜在升级。如果没有其他总结，我将继续进行下去。我只有一句话想说。就像孙子的名言中有一句很有名的话：“治大国若烹小鲜”，这是一个大错误，我们必须确保我们不会因台湾和中国之间的战争而卷入战争。好的。我们必须避免这些事情发生。这就是Saks和我对齐的地方。所以在Calicanis的节目中，我们首次听到了这个观点。让我们继续追求和平吧。我只能希望冲突能尽快结束，正如我一直说的那样。

I realized over the last week how little I know about the Russian military conflict with Ukraine and I appreciate Saks's contributions. Super helpful. I went to Cal, UC Berkeley, 1997, fall in 97 and it was the last year that Cal had affirmative action admissions. And I remember at that time there was a big case that a guy named Baki was rejected by the University of California Davis Medical School and he alleged reverse discrimination in 1974 and sued the University of California and eventually became a landmark US Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California, verse Baki. And in 1995, the UC Regents voted to eliminate affirmative action. So the year that I was at Cal, I think was the last year of affirmative action admissions and it's obviously been a pretty hot topic here in California for the past, you know, 25, 30 years.
在过去的一周里，我意识到自己对俄罗斯与乌克兰的军事冲突了解甚少，我很感激Saks的贡献，真的帮了我很多。我是1997年秋天在加州大学伯克利分校（UC Berkeley）上学的，那一年也是伯克利最后一年实施平权入学政策。我还记得当时发生了一起大案件，一个叫巴基的人被加州大学戴维斯分校医学院拒绝录取，并声称遭到了逆向歧视，于是在1974年对加州大学提起了诉讼，最终成为了美国最高法院的标志性案件，即《加州大学董事会诉巴基案》。在1995年，加州大学董事会投票决定取消平权入学政策。所以我读伯克利时应该是平权入学政策的最后一年，这个话题在过去的25到30年里一直是加州的热门话题。

This morning, the Supreme Court ruled on two separate cases regarding using race as an admissions criteria in college admissions. And the votes were six to three against affirmative action in the University of North Carolina case and 62 against affirmative action in the Harvard case, Katanji Brown Jackson recused herself because she previously served on Harvard's board of overseers, all the conservative as their, you know, kind of characterized judges voted to strike down affirmative action and all the as their characterized liberal judges voted to keep it.
今天早上，最高法院就两起与大学录取中使用种族作为录取标准有关的案件进行了裁决。在北卡罗来纳大学案中，投票结果为6票对3票，反对采取肯定行动，而在哈佛案中，投票结果为6票对2票。卡坦吉·布朗·杰克逊因为曾在哈佛大学的监察委员会任职而回避。所有被认为是保守派的法官都投票反对肯定行动，而所有被认为是自由派的法官都投票支持保留肯定行动。

Both of these cases were filed in 2014 by a group called Students for Fair Admissions. And effectively, the court said that at Harvard at UNC, the schools were systematically discriminating against Asian Americans in violation of civil rights laws by using their race as a system for profiling, excluding and trying to be more inclusive of a more diverse and racially diverse set of applicants.
这两个案件均由一组名为“公平招生学生联盟”的人在2014年提起。并且，法庭实际上认定，在哈佛大学和北卡罗来纳大学，学校通过将种族作为一种系统来进行性别歧视，排除并试图更广泛、更多元化地接纳一组不同种族背景的申请人，违反了民权法。

So Tamath, I'd love your read, I guess, on the surprise or this was an accepted case. I think Saxon, I mentioned this before, but I think we both expected this to happen. I think it's probably important to maybe set up a more practical explainer, Freberg. So Nick, if you want to just throw up that image that I just sent you, we can sort of explain the genesis of the lawsuit. So what you can see here is admit rates into Harvard by race, ethnicity, but also by academic decile.
所以，Tamath，我很想听听你的意见，我猜，关于这个意外或者说这是一种被接受的情况。我认为Saxo，我之前提到过，但我觉得我们俩都预料到了这种情况。可能更重要的是，可能需要对这个诉讼的起因进行更实用的解释，Freberg。所以Nick，如果你想要展示一下我刚才发给你的图片，我们可以解释一下这个诉讼的起源。你可以在这里看到的是哈佛大学的录取率，按种族、民族和学术排名进行划分。

Yeah. And so what it basically shows in a nutshell is an African American student in the 40th percentile of the academic index is actually more likely to get in than an Asian student at the 100th percentile. And so that at the core is sort of always being. That means that means that the Asian American student had better scores than 99% of other applicants and still didn't get in. Right. Right.
是的，简而言之，这基本上表明，在学术指标上排在百分之四十的非裔美国学生比百分之百的亚裔学生更有可能被录取。这就是核心所在。这意味着亚裔美国学生的成绩比其他申请者中的百分之九十九还要好，但仍然没有被录取。没错。

So you have to go back, I think, to 2003, when essentially what the Supreme Court said is like, look, we're going to allow this affirmative action stuff to last roughly for another 25 years, but by that point, we expect that the work that needed to be done will have been done. Again, this is them saying this, not me. And so I think what today does is actually quite important, not just for what it means for universities, but also what it means for private enterprises.
所以我认为你必须回到2003年，当时最高法院基本上是在说，看，我们将允许这种肯定行动的政策再继续大约25年，但到那时，我们希望应该完成的工作已经完成了。再次强调，这是他们说的，不是我说的。所以我认为今天所做的事情实际上非常重要，不仅对于大学的意义如何，而且对于私营企业的意义也是一样的重要。

So just to take a second on this, I think what happens today is the pretty obvious stuff, which is that you have to change university applications, you have to change all of the admissions profiling, all of the stuff that you would normally do. You probably, I'm not even sure if you can even have a box where you can declare race. Maybe you cannot. I don't even know. But all of that changes today.
所以就简单地说一下，我认为今天发生的事情相当明显，那就是你必须改变大学申请的方式，改变所有的录取评估，以及通常情况下要做的所有事情。你可能不能够有一个可以声明种族的选项框，也许你不能。我甚至不知道。但今天所有的一切都会发生改变。

So then the question is, well, what's the first order derivative? What changes next? And I called someone who's a pretty well known constitutional Supreme Court lawyer on this and the next step is probably going to be around athletics based and legacy based admissions. So athletics based admissions are pretty obvious, which is you don't really have great grades, but you're really stupendous at a sport that's important to that school. So then they let you in because they want to compete in said sport for whatever reason.
那么问题来了，第一阶导数是什么？接下来会发生什么变化？我曾经与一位很有名的宪法最高法院律师讨论过这个问题，接下来的一步可能会涉及基于体育和传统的录取方式。基于体育的录取方式相当明显，也就是说即使你的成绩不太好，但在某个对该校很重要的运动项目上非常出色，他们也会录取你，因为他们希望在该项目上有竞争力，无论出于何种原因。

The legacy one is even more prickly, which is you're kind of a dummy, but your parents are rich and or went to the school before. And so then they let you in as well. And his thought on this is that those things will go away because if you can't use race based admissions to kind of balance the scales, then it'll become pretty quick where somebody launches a legacy based lawsuit or an athletic based bias lawsuit and wins that as well.
传统留学生还更加棘手，意味着你有点儿笨，但你的父母很有钱或者以前就读过这所学校。因此，他们也让你进来了。他对此的看法是，如果不能使用基于种族的招生来平衡状况，那么基于传统的诉讼或基于体育的偏见诉讼也会取得胜利，从而导致这些事情都无法继续存在。

So that's the first order derivative. So, you know, the thought are those because those are constitutionally protected, whereas equality based on race. But it becomes a huge headache for these schools, right? And so you're going to be fighting these admission standards constantly changing. And so if you're not going to let, you know, a bunch of poor minority black and brown kids in, but you're letting in the sons and daughters of rich important people, I think that that's going to paint that school in a very bad light.
所以这是一阶导数。你知道，这些思想是宪法保护的，而以种族为基础的平等则不是。但这对这些学校来说会成为一个巨大的头疼问题，对吧？所以你将会不断与身份要求的改变作斗争。所以如果你不让一群贫困的少数族裔黑人和棕色人种的孩子进来，而是让有钱有势的人的子女进来，我觉得这会给那所学校带来非常不好的形象。

So I think that's short and shim off white, typically white, typically white. Like all the one would say, the great thing over the last couple of decades is there have been a lot of minorities that have gotten into these very elite schools, which means this, their kids would be the first generation that's eligible for legacy, but you're going to wipe that away. So I think from just a social stigma perspective, and I have a solution for this, which I'll get to at the end for those people, but so I think that's the first order derivative.
所以我认为，这就是简而言之的情况，白色是主要的颜色，通常都是这样的。就像大家都会说的，过去几十年最重要的一件事是有很多少数民族进入了这些非常精英的学校，这意味着他们的孩子将成为第一代有资格获得校友遗产的人，但你们要抹去这一切。所以我认为，从社会的角度来看，这是第一阶段的衍生问题。我对此有一个解决方案，在最后我会提到，以供那些有需要的人参考。

The second order derivative is now what lawsuits get launched and what are the implications for private companies, right? So right now this affects any institution that receives federal funding. And that includes all the universities. So there's no private or public university really except for a handful that don't take this money. So they'll all have to do this. But the really important question after that will be what happens to companies like Apple or Facebook or Exxon who have race-based programs to try to attract African-American engineers or Hispanic chemists, whatever the program is that you want to come up with, will those get challenged and will those companies have to change? And my friends' thoughts on that were that yes, that those would also change. And that's going to have a really important impact on private enterprise and how they approach this stuff and how DEI stuff works. And frankly, downstream how ESG works because all these ESG checkboxes now, some of them will actually become illegal, right? So I think the importance of decision can't be really understated. It's going to, the changes will be slow and then they'll be fast. They'll first touch higher ed, but then I think they'll touch private enterprise. And so I think it was a very important decision in America that just happened.
第二阶导数现在是什么诉讼被发起以及对私营公司有什么影响，对吗？所以现在这会影响到任何接受联邦资金的机构，包括所有大学。所以除了少数几所不接受这笔钱的大学，几乎没有真正的私立或公立大学。所以他们都必须做这件事。但是之后真正重要的问题是像苹果、Facebook或埃克森这样的公司，他们是否会面临挑战，是否需要改变那些基于种族的招聘计划，以吸引非洲裔美国工程师或西班牙裔化学家，或者任何你想要提出的计划。我的朋友们认为，是的，这些计划也会发生变化。这将对私营企业以及它们处理这些事情和多元化、包容性工作方式产生非常重要的影响。而且，从更下游的角度来看，ESG工作也会受到影响，因为其中一些ESG核对项目现在实际上会成为非法，对吧？所以我认为这个决定的重要性是不能低估的。变革将是缓慢的，然后会迅速加速。首先会触及高等教育，但我认为之后会触及私营企业。所以我认为这是美国刚刚发生的非常重要的决定。

Shamak, what is the right ethics and values? I mean, what do you guys, I guess we could just do this around the table. J-Cal, maybe you kick it off. Should we, I mean, from your point of view, do you think that values should include racial diversity in admissions and universities? Yeah, this is like the ultimate. Or is the values about equality of opportunity for everyone regardless of race, right? You're asking the exact right question, I think. That's the world's greatest moderator. But yeah, go ahead. Doing a solid job so far.
沙马克，什么是正确的道德和价值观？我的意思是，你们怎么看，我想我们可以围着这个桌子讨论一下。J-Cal，或许你可以先发表一下看法。在你的观点中，我们应该把种族多样性纳入大学的招生和录取标准中吗？是的，这是一个最重要的问题。或者价值观是否应该关注每个人的机会均等，而不论种族？你问的问题正是切中要点，我认为你是世界上最出色的主持人。好的，继续吧。你到目前为止已经做得很好了。

And this creates a lot of cognitive dissonance for people, right? Because you really want to believe that the world is a meritocracy. And if you were to take other pursuits in the world, you'd never say like we should let race, gender, age affect people's performance in the 100-yard dash or their compensation at a company, right? All of that should be based on achievement. And so there is a question on what achievements should be taken into account when you apply to a school. And it's pretty obvious the legacy thing is a backdoor into these schools. But we want to feel like we're also making progress because listen, the world has been unfair. The world was built on slavery. And our country has only 150 years past that. And civil rights act was what, 1964 or 65? We really want to see everybody achieve here.
这对人们来说产生了很多认知失调，对吧？因为你真的希望相信世界是一个精英制度。如果在世界上从事其他追求的话，你永远不会说我们应该让种族、性别、年龄影响人们在一百码赛跑中的表现或者在公司的薪酬，对吧？所有这些都应该基于成就。所以当你申请学校时，应该考虑哪些成就是一个问题。而事实上遗产问题显然是这些学校的一个后门通道。但同时我们也希望感觉到我们也在进步，因为听着，这个世界是不公平的。这个世界是建立在奴隶制度之上的。而我们国家距离那个时期只有150年。民权法案是在什么时候通过的？1964年或者65年？我们真的希望看到每个人都取得成功。

So I think you have to pause for a second and say, well, if the goal is you want to see Black Americans perform better, and I think that's the underlying concern here, and it is based on the legacy of America, well, how do you do that? And I think we're looking way too far down in the educational pipeline. The solution here is really childcare. The solution here is nursery schools, pre-K, elementary school education, and those things need competition. And that's where people fall behind. To be looking at this at the end of the academic journey is, I think, crazy. So when I'm president, I'm going to have 365 day a year, childcare and pre-K. And that's where we should if we really want to try to make up for some wrongs in the history of this country and try to have better outcomes, we need competition in schools, which means probably breaking some of these unions and giving people vouchers and choice. And then we have to invest more in the earliest stages of education. And I think everybody wants to see a better system here.
所以我认为你必须暂停一下，想想，如果目标是希望看到非裔美国人表现更好，我想这是这里的潜在关切，而它基于美国的历史遗留问题，那么，你怎么办呢？我认为我们在教育管道中望得太远了。解决方案实际上是儿童保育。解决方案是托儿所、学前教育和小学教育，而这些需要竞争。而人们在这方面落后了。在学业旅程结束时才考虑这个问题，我认为这是疯狂的。所以当我成为总统时，我将全年365天提供儿童保育和学前教育。而这就是我们应该努力补偿这个国家历史上的一些错误，同时寻求更好的结果的地方，我们需要学校之间的竞争，这意味着可能要削弱一些工会，给予人们补贴和选择权。然后我们必须在早期教育阶段投入更多。我认为每个人都希望看到一个更好的系统。

DEI, to Chomats Point, is it is illegal to hire people based on race, gender, any of those criteria, obviously. And the DEI programs are trying to fill more applicants. So their goal typically, and the way they don't break the law, is to just try to, in their best cases, find more applicants. But even that does feel like there's many times in life when people will say things in corporate America, like we have too many white guys in these positions. We cannot hire another white guy. So the reality of DEI that I've seen up close and personal, when I was at AOL, I've told the story before, somebody said to me, there's no way for us to make you an EVP. You have to stay at SVP. And I said, why is that? Like I'm doing all this EVP level work. And they said, because you're a white guy. And the entire company is white guys at EVP. And we cannot add another white guy there. But we'll just give you the same bonus compensation. So don't worry about it. And so there's all kinds of games being played here.
在DEI（多样性、平等和包容性）方面，例如在聘用上，根据种族、性别或其它标准来雇佣人是非法的，这是显而易见的。而DEI计划正试图增加更多的应聘者。因此，他们的目标通常是通过尽量找到更多的应聘者来遵守法律，但即便如此，很多时候在企业美国里人们会说，我们这些职位上有太多白人男性了，我们不能再雇佣另一个白人男性。所以我亲身经历过的DEI的现实情况是，在我还在AOL工作的时候，我曾讲述过这个故事，有人对我说，我们无法让你成为EVP（高级副总裁），你必须保持SVP（副总裁）的级别。我问为什么，明明我在承担EVP级别的工作。他们回答说，因为你是一个白人男性，而整个公司的EVP都是白人男性，我们不能再增加白人男性。但我们会给你同样的奖金补偿，所以不用担心。因此，这里发生了各种各样的游戏策略。

But I think it's great that we're having this conversation, right? It's a hard conversation for America to have. For me, I've talked about this in the past. I've always had concern when we make this shift away from equality of opportunity to equality of outcome. Because we all have this objective that we want to see everyone have equal rights to success in some way in the United States. The question is, at what point do you move beyond opportunity, where everyone is given an equal opportunity in this country to invest themselves in transforming their own lives versus a quality of outcome where regardless of how much you do, how much effort, or your trials, you are given the same as everyone else? And that ends up looking a lot like socialism. And it's very concerning because I think it limits progress and opportunity for everyone.
我认为我们正在进行这样的对话真是太好了，不是吗？这是对美国来说很难的一个对话。对我来说，我过去就谈论过这个问题。当我们从机会平等转向结果平等时，我总是有所担忧。因为我们所有人都渴望在某种程度上看到每个人都有平等的成功权利。问题是，在什么时候你会超越机会，每个人在这个国家都有平等的机会来改变自己的生活，转向结果平等，无论你付出多少努力或经历多少苦难，你都会得到和其他人一样多的回报。最后这种情况看起来很像社会主义。这让我非常担心，因为我认为这会限制每个人的进步和机会。

The real challenge with this particular topic is college admissions about outcome or is it about opportunity? It's outcome in the sense that you spend 12 years going to elementary school and high school and working hard to get yourself into college. So it's the outcome of all of that effort. And some people aren't given the opportunity to have success during those 12 years. And it is an outcome. What do you think we should do? And it's an opportunity because it's about going to college because without having a great college cycle, you may have a more tougher time getting into the workforce. So that is why it's a hard value question for me. I don't have a great answer on this. But I'm just pointing out it's a lot like the abortion argument where both sides have some value-oriented point of view that feels like it's negating the other person's point of view. But at the end of the day, they're both coming from either this is an opportunity or it's an outcome decision and that's what makes it so challenging.
在这个特定话题上面临的真正挑战是大学录取是关于结果还是关于机会？从结果的角度来看，你花12年时间上小学和高中，并努力努力使自己进入大学。因此，这是所有努力的结果。而有些人在这些12年中没有机会获得成功。这也是一种结果。你认为我们应该怎么做？而从机会的角度来看，这是关于上大学的机会，因为如果没有一段良好的大学经历，你在进入职场方面可能会遇到更大的困难。所以这就是为什么对我来说是一个难以回答的价值问题。但我只是指出，这很像堕胎争论的情况，双方都有一些价值取向的观点，感觉似乎否定了对方的观点。但到最后，他们都是基于“这是一个机会”或“这是一个结果决策”的立场，这就是使其如此具有挑战性的原因。

The National Bureau of Economic Research did a study in 2019 that they published. And what they found was that 43 percent, so 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard were athletes or legacy students or children of faculty and staff or had a relative that were donors to the school. 43 percent. It's rigged. And then they found on top of that that 75 percent of those white students admitted from those four categories would have been rejected if they had been treated as a normal applicant. So I think for all the people that are looking at all the black and brown kids that may not get into a place like Harvard, if you don't look at these other categories, it's a bit of a gross injustice, quite honestly. So I think that these institutions have to evolve.
2019年，美国经济研究局进行了一项研究并予以公开发表。他们发现，哈佛录取的白人学生中有43％是运动员、学校校友或教职员工的子女，或者他们有亲属是该校的捐赠者。这个比例高达43％，非常不公平。此外，研究还发现，如果按照普通申请者的标准对这些四个类别中被录取的白人学生进行评估，其中有75％本应被拒绝。所以我认为，对于那些可能无法被哈佛等高校录取的黑人和棕色人种的学生，如果不考虑这些其他类别的话，这是一种相当严重的不公正。因此，我认为这些高校必须进化和改革。

And if you're going to be forced to be meritocratic, then actually be meritocratic. And by the way, I actually am fine with legacies and donors. But I think what should happen is you should just publish a rate card and you should make it hyper transparent. And so I love it for the rich guy who's got an idiot, son or daughter. Let's just be upfront and honest with everybody. It costs $50 million to get into Stanford. It costs $80 million to get into Harvard. We all know these numbers. So we should just publish them, you should pay the price and be done with it. And for Harvard and Stanford and Yale and all these schools, having an extra 10 or 20 dummies, but an extra two or three billion may be a reasonable trade off, but at least it would be transparent and fair. Right.
如果你被迫必须实行精英制度，那就严格按照精英制度执行。顺便说一句，我其实对学校的传承和捐赠者并不反感。但我认为应该做的是公布一个费率表，让一切变得透明。所以，对于那些有个傻瓜儿子或女儿的有钱人，我很乐意。我们应该坦诚地告诉每个人，进入斯坦福需要花费5000万美元，进入哈佛需要8000万美元。我们都知道这些数字。所以我们应该公开它们，付出代价，一切就此结束。对于哈佛、斯坦福、耶鲁等学校来说，多招收10到20个笨蛋，但多得两三十亿美元可能是一个合理的折衷，至少这样是透明和公平的。明白吗？

This is an important free market question as well, because these are private institutions. They're privately funded. Not if they take federal dollars or not. Agreed. Yes. But if they take federal dollars, they're not. And then it becomes a government process. It's government influence. It's a state school. It's, is there a separate category here, just like country clubs or any private membership club where the members of the club get to decide who they want to admit to the club? And is that un-American and should the Supreme Court and should our Constitution have a role in defining how private institutions make decisions about who gets it? No.
这同样是一个重要的自由市场问题，因为这些是私立机构。它们是私人资助的，不管它们是否接受联邦资金。同意。是的。但如果它们接受联邦资金，那它们就不再是私立机构了，而变成了一项政府流程，政府会产生影响。这是一所公立学校。在这里是否有一个单独的类别，就像乡村俱乐部或任何私人会员俱乐部一样，会员们可以决定谁能被录取为会员？那是否不符合美国的原则？最高法院和我们的宪法是否应该在定义私立机构如何做出决策方面扮演角色？不应该。

Harvard could absolutely return all the federal funding, the billions of dollars a year they get. That's totally reasonable. And then they can decide to just focus on legacy admits. That's totally reasonable. It's within their rights. Sacks. We got it. I know that I know that you used up your quote, your speaking quota already. Well, yeah, I didn't want to, I didn't want to buddy. Give him four of my, give him four of my points. I want to hear. Just one last second. You get four of Jake Health minutes. Go ahead. I give you four of my minutes. So yeah, two, two points, I guess. So on the legacy thing, I agree with Jamath that we should get rid of it. It's not meritocratic. I think that if they did publish a rate card that would be more honest, but they'd be too embarrassed and ashamed to do that. But I think making that argument exposes the hypocrisy of it. I've already told my kids it's not helping them go into college. So they're going to have to do it on their own. And so look, I think the legacy thing.
哈佛完全可以退还政府的所有资金，每年数十亿美元。这是完全合理的。然后他们可以决定只关注留下来的录取者。这是完全合理的。这是他们的权利。萨克斯。我们已经搞定了。我知道我知道你已经用完了你的名额，你的讲话名额。是的，是的，我不想，我不想朋友。给他四个，给他四个我的，给他四个我的分数。我想听。就最后一秒钟。你有四分钟的时间。去吧。我给你我的四分钟。所以，是的，两个，两个点，我想。关于留下这件事，我同意Jamath的观点，我们应该取消它。这不是按功绩选拔的。我认为，如果他们公布一个费率表，那将更加诚实，但他们会感到太尴尬和羞耻而不会这样做。但我认为提出这个观点揭露了其虚伪性。我已经告诉我的孩子们，这并不能帮助他们上大学。所以他们必须靠自己去做。所以，看，我认为留下这件事。

By the way, that's the best. If you can give kids that perspective. Sorry, go ahead, sex, I mean, so that's point number one.
顺便说一句，那是最好的。如果你能让孩子们有这样的观点，对不起，接着说，性别，我的意思是，这就是第一点。

Feli agreed on the legacy thing with respect to the decision itself that. I'm sorry. Can I just clarify that? Do you believe that the legacy thing should be like in federal law? I mean, is that a government thing? Or do you think that that's how those institutions should behave? Because those are different. I mean, I'm asking, are you suggesting that the law should be involved, that the government should be involved? I don't know if it's a legal thing because I don't know how to implement that law. But I think it's something they should stop doing one way or another. Maybe it should be a law, but I think it should stop. So I think that's point one. The legacy thing for private membership.
费利同意关于决定本身来说的“遗产问题”。对不起，我可以澄清一下吗？您认为这个遗产问题应该像联邦法律一样吗？我的意思是，这是政府的事情吗？或者您认为这是这些机构应该如何行事？因为这些是不同的事情。我的意思是，您是在暗示法律应该介入，政府应该参与吗？我不知道这是否是法律问题，因为我不知道如何实施相关法律。但是我认为无论如何他们都应该停止这样做。也许应该制定一个法律，但我认为应该停止。所以我认为这是第一点。对于私人成员来说，遗产问题。

So just let me just double click on that. Do you think that should extend to private membership clubs like country clubs as well? That they shouldn't be allowed to decide who they let in and don't let in? What makes it different that it's Harvard? Is it because it's education versus any other private membership? No, because it takes federal funding. It takes tax pay. Well, you and I should not pay for some person to be able to get into a school they don't deserve to get into just because their parent went there or just because they're part of the road to check. That's unreasonable. And if they don't take federal funding, these schools take so much federal funding that they're quasi-public institutions, even the private ones. So that's the distinction. That's the distinction for you, just to be clear.
所以让我双击这个问题。你认为这种情况是否应该延伸到私人会员俱乐部（比如乡村俱乐部）呢？他们不应该有权决定谁可以加入、谁不可以加入吗？什么使哈佛大学与其他私人会员不同？是因为它涉及到教育而不是其他私人会员吗？不，因为它接受联邦拨款，纳税人资助。好吧，你我不应该为某些个人能够进入他们不应该进入的学校而付费，只因为他们的父母曾在那里就读，或者只因为他们是某个名单上的一员。这是不合理的。即使这些学校不接受联邦拨款，它们也接受了大量的联邦资助，甚至包括私立学校也是如此。所以这就是区别所在。这是你要明确的区别。

And also there is a strong meritocracy opportunity argument on this. And I think it's why that whole parents college admissions scandal was such a big deal is that for a lot of people in this country, the ability to have your kids advance themselves by being the first to get into college or go into college or go into a better college, that is a big part of creating opportunity in this country. So for people to try and defraud that, I think created a huge backlash.
而且，这还存在着一个强烈的精英选拔机会的论点。我认为，这就是为什么整个家长大学录取丑闻如此重要的原因是，对于这个国家的很多人来说，通过让自己的孩子成为第一个进入大学或者进入更好的大学的人，这是创造机会的重要一部分。因此，对于人们试图欺骗这一制度，引发了巨大的反弹。

So look, I think that the legacy thing just needs to end one way or another. I don't know exactly what the right legal implementation is.
所以看吧，我认为遗产问题无论如何都需要解决了。我不确定正确的法律实施方式是什么。

I have two questions for the panel. Number one, should you be able to say by geography, hey, listen, we're Harvard or we're Stanford, we want to have a representation of people from around the world. So we're going to have the top three students from each country or by population, however you do it, mathematically come in. So a little bit of geography because I did hear from one of these coaches that cost like six figures to get your kids into the college, they said the best thing you can do is like move to Kentucky, you know, and then Harvard and Stanford are looking to get a certain number of students from each state. I don't know how true that is, but they said that's like one of the top ways to do it.
我有两个问题要问小组。第一个问题是，你们认为是否应该按地理位置来说，嘿，听着，我们是哈佛或者我们是斯坦福，我们希望拥有来自世界各地的学生代表。因此，我们将让每个国家的前三名学生通过地理位置或者人口统计等数学方法加入进来。稍微考虑一下地理因素，因为我听一个教练说，要让你的孩子进入大学，需要花费六位数的费用。他们说，最好的方法就是搬到肯塔基州，因为哈佛和斯坦福正在寻找每个州的一定数量的学生。我不知道这是否属实，但他们说这是其中一个最佳的方式。

Well, do you remember Jason just to build on your point? I don't know if you guys remember, but a few years ago, the in fashion thing to do was to learn to play squash. And I remember all these parents telling me that and they had kids that were older than my kids and they were, they were hiring full time squash coaches because apparently squash was like angle. Yeah. So angle shots. Yeah. I think like stop at the angle shooting guys. Yes. The gun should go off, you should run the race and your time is your time and you should go to whatever the best school is that you deserve to get into based on your academic ability.
嗯，你还记得杰森吗，接着说？我不知道你们是否记得，但几年前，流行的事情是学打壁球。我记得有些父母告诉我，他们的孩子比我的孩子大，他们雇佣了一名全职的壁球教练，因为壁球好像有什么特殊招式。是的，角度击球。是的，好像是用角度打球的技巧。是的，枪应该开火，你应该奔跑比赛，你所用的时间是你自己的时间，你应该去最好的学校，那是基于你的学术能力所应得的。

So back, the big problem and I think Jason, you really nailed it on the head. Trying to fix it with affirmative action at the university is still quite unfair in the sense that there are so many black and brown kids, I think with tons of potential that don't even get there. And so the real question is, what are you doing at the grade school and at the high school and at the preschool so that you actually get more of these kids to the starting line? Because fixing it when they're 18, I think is a little too late.
回到正题吧，这个大问题，我认为Jason你说得非常准确。试图通过大学实行平权行动来解决问题，在某种意义上仍然是不公平的，因为有很多有潜力的黑人和有色人种的孩子，甚至都没有机会进入大学。所以真正的问题是，在小学、中学和幼儿园阶段，你们在做些什么，以确保更多这些孩子能够站在起跑线上？因为等到他们18岁再来修补，我觉得已经太晚了。

Yeah. Right. Fixing it for three, four and five years old, that's when they deserve and need all the help in the world. Two years old. That's why we need school choice. We need charter schools. We need to break them monopoly that the unions have over the schools running it running it for their own benefit and not for the kids. Fight the little enemy.
是的。对。为了三四五岁的孩子解决问题，那时他们理应且需要全世界的所有帮助。两岁的孩子。这就是为什么我们需要学校选择权。我们需要特许学校。我们需要打破教师工会对学校的垄断，他们只是为了自身利益而经营学校，而不是为了孩子们。与小敌人战斗。

If you define institutional racism as conditions that trap people and conditions of poverty across generations. I'd say the abysmal quality of our public schools are number one. Number one, two and three. And the reason is because there's no competition and the unions run it for their own benefit. They shut down these schools for in California because they didn't want to work as they're afraid of.
如果你将制度性种族主义定义为使人们陷入贫困和贫困代际循环的条件，我会说我们公立学校可悲的质量是最重要的原因。是第一、第二和第三个原因。而原因是因为缺乏竞争，工会为了自身利益而控制着学校。他们关闭加利福尼亚的这些学校，是因为他们不愿意承担他们害怕的工作。

Don't say the see where we just got a label. Beep it up. We're going to be. Be. That was not for the benefit of kids and it wasn't even medically necessary. That was a benefit they saw for themselves. Yeah. You come from a family that were members of unions because they worked for fire for police. Is that right? We speak negatively about the effects of the teachers unions on our public education system. I think it's absolutely correct. But how do you share the point of view from the other side? If you're a teacher and you're a member of the union and the union takes care of you, what's the argument?
不要说我们刚刚得到一个标签的那个地方。哔一声。我们要变得更好。那不是为了孩子们的利益，甚至医学上也没有必要。那是他们自己看到的好处。是的。你来自一个家庭，他们是工会的成员，因为他们在消防部门或警察局工作，是吗？我们对教师工会对我们的公立教育系统产生的影响持负面态度。我认为这完全正确。但你如何从另一方的观点来分享呢？如果你是一名教师，是工会的成员，工会照顾着你，那有什么争论呢？

Yeah, sure. People say this union is damaging public education and the teacher that's working in the union and the member of the union says this is necessary for my livelihood to protect me for my benefit. Help us share the point of view because we all have the strongly held point of view that the unions are destroying and eroding public education. People have the right to form unions. But what we all do is we are forced to be consumers of one educational product because of how we pay taxes. We pay taxes in. I think in California, we each pay $16,000 into the educational system. If you're a parent, you should get that 16k back and be able to choose what you do with it. So there's competition. The unions can have protection, but there still should be competition for these services.
是的，当然。人们说这个工会正在破坏公共教育，而在工会工作的教师以及工会成员则表示这对我的生计非常必要，可以保护我的利益。帮助我们分享这个观点，因为我们都坚定地认为工会正在破坏和侵蚀公共教育。人们有权利组织工会。但我们所有人都被迫成为同一个教育产品的消费者，因为我们要缴税。我们每个人在加利福尼亚州为教育系统每年缴纳16000美元。如果你是家长，你应该拿回这16000美元，然后自行决定如何使用。所以应该有竞争。工会可以得到保护，但仍然应该有这些服务的竞争。

I think there are two separate issues. There's one other thing, which is I just want to give a shout out to a nonprofit that I support called Smash Academy, Smash.org. It's done by Mitch and Freda Kapoor. Mitch Kapoor founded Lotus 123. If you're under the age of 40, you might not know him. And what they do is they realize that a lot of the students who do get into good colleges, it turns out a lot of the black and brown students, they get accepted and they're behind in math. And so what Smash has done is they have a three year program and I go speak at it sometimes and I donate money to it and I encourage you to do the same. They have this intensive summer program. So before you go to college, Shamaf, if you were one of those students, you might get into college and then they drop out or even worse, they switch from a STEM degree to a non-STEM degree because they're two years behind on STEM or a year behind on STEM. And so the Kapoor has found this little opportunity to kind of catch people up. And I think that's what we have to do. We have to address this much earlier and not put a bandaid on it.
我认为有两个不同的问题。还有一件事，我想给支持的一个非营利组织——Smash Academy（Smash.org）打个广告。它是由米奇和弗里达·卡普尔（Mitch and Freda Kapoor）创办的。米奇·卡普尔是Lotus 123的创始人。如果你年龄不到40岁，可能不知道他。他们发现，许多能进入好大学的学生，尤其是黑人和棕色人种的学生，他们虽然被录取了，但在数学方面却落后。为此，Smash开设了一个为期三年的项目，我有时去那里演讲，也捐款支持他们，并鼓励你们也能做同样的事情。他们有一个密集的暑期项目。所以，如果你是那些学生之一，你可能会进入大学，然后辍学，甚至更糟糕的是，从理工科转到非理工科，因为他们在理工科上落后了两年或一年。因此，卡普尔夫妇发现了这个小机会，可以帮助这些人迎头赶上。我认为我们必须更早地解决这个问题，不能只靠敷衍了事。

Yeah, and the Ivy League system needs to- Well, it's not just IPs, right? Well, sure, it's not just pick on Harvard, but it's like all the state schools. It's like all the state schools. It's like all the institutions, which we talk about. No, all institutions. All institutions that receive federal funding. They need to take a deep look in the mirror and say, are we doing the best thing for society? The second question I had for the panel was- Well, I'm not getting the point of view of academics. Or are you in a point of view, by the way? But yeah.
是的，常青藤盟校的系统需要——嗯，不仅仅是知识产权，对吧？嗯，当然，不仅仅是指责哈佛大学，而是所有的州立学校。就是说所有的州立学校。就是说我们所谈到的所有机构。不，是所有机构。所有接受联邦资助的机构都需要深入反思并问自己，我们是否为社会做出了最好的贡献？我对讨论组的第二个问题是——嗯，我并没有得到学术界的观点。顺便问一句，你是持什么观点？但是，是的。

But our pure academics, the best way to accept people into a college or should there be some blend of it, like putting sports aside, because that's an obvious one. But there's academics, but then there's also creativity. If you might be terrible on your SATs or standardized tests, and you might be an incredible virtuoso pianist. So I think what is the criteria and making that criteria fair is what we all want. And it feels tremendously unfair. My point of view is if the government is funding these schools, then the government certainly has to have a point of view on what's the reasonable model for admissions.
但是我们的纯学术能力，接受人们进入大学最好的方式应该是什么呢？或者应该是一种混合的方式，比如把体育放在一边，因为这是显而易见的。但是既有学术能力，又有创造力。你可能在SAT或标准化考试上表现很糟糕，但你可能是一位了不起的钢琴演奏家。所以我认为，制定公平的招生标准是我们所有人所希望的。这感觉非常不公平。我的观点是，如果政府资助这些学校，那么政府肯定对招生的合理模式有自己的观点。

The government's not funding the schools. I love a diversity in a marketplace. I love having different schools, having different admissions criteria that allow different people to find their path through different institutions. To your point, Juilliard does not care, perhaps, as much what you did on your SAT and chemistry. And art schools do not care as much how well you did in math. And STEM schools don't care whether or not you want an art competition. And I think that that's the important thing that we need to preserve. We need to preserve optionality for institutions to define what sorts of individuals they want to try and recruit and progress and train and get ready for the workforce and the path in life that they then choose versus trying to create a cookie cutter model for what the government says is fair for everyone. And as much as we can take government funding out of these institutions and out of these systems and give them the freedom to set their own admissions criteria and create differential educational systems, I think that's going to create the best diversity of a workforce. And I would kind of be more excited about that sort of an institutional system than one that is standardized by the government.
政府不再为学校提供资金。我喜欢市场的多样性。我喜欢不同的学校，不同的招生标准，让不同的人通过不同的机构找到适合自己的道路。就你说的，茱莉亚学院或许并不非常在意你在SAT和化学方面的表现，而艺术学校并不太在意你数学学得有多好。STEM学校也不在意你是否参加过艺术比赛。我认为这一点很重要，我们需要保留机构为自己所招募、培养和准备就业和生活道路的个人定义的选择权，而不是试图为每个人都制定一个标准化的模型，跟随政府所认为的公平。只要我们能尽量减少政府对这些机构和系统的资助，给予它们自主设定招生标准并创建差异化教育体系的自由，我相信这将创造出最有多样性的劳动力。我对这种机构体系更加兴奋，而不是一个由政府统一规范的体系。

You know why that will never happen? Because the profit motive of these universities is really to be shadow organizations for their endowments. And the thing with endowments is that the people that work there very much want to get paid and behave like profit-generating organizations. And I think the issue is that if their sole job was to really fund the operational expenses of the university, then the endowments would be run very differently. Right? Like take again, I just looked up on the internet, but Harvard has about the operating expenses are roughly five and a half billion dollars a year, but the revenues are about five and a half billion dollars a year.
你知道为什么这永远不会发生吗？因为这些大学的利润动机实际上是作为他们捐赠基金的隐蔽组织。而捐赠基金的问题在于，工作于那里的人非常希望得到报酬，并且会表现得像盈利组织一样。我认为问题在于，如果他们的唯一工作是真正为大学筹措运营费用，那么捐赠基金的管理方式将会完全不同。对吧？比如说，我刚刚在网上查到，哈佛大约每年的运营费用大约是55亿美元，而收入也是大约55亿美元。

So if instead you had to basically fund, you know, there was essentially no revenue per se, right? There was very little tuition and you didn't take any federal funding.
所以，如果你要基本上资助，你知道，实际上没有多少收入，对吧？基本上没有学费，你也没有接受任何联邦资助。

You'd have to come up with five billion dollars a year. So you'd just basically take that as a draw from your endowment. The endowment would be run very differently. It would be a don't lose money endowment that would generate very low-volve returns. I think the problem with that is that that's not how the endowment at Harvard works. They wouldn't necessarily make risk-seeking investments in things like private equity and hedge funds and venture capital into the extent they did. They would just make much, much fewer, much, much smaller or both. So I think what you're saying could be possible, but the problem are probably the endowments at these universities.
你们每年必须筹集到五十亿美元。所以基本上，你们可以把它当作是从你们的基金中划出来的。这个基金将会有不同的运营方式。它将成为一个不会亏损的基金，但其回报率会非常低。我认为问题就在于哈佛大学的基金不是这样运作的。他们不会像现在那样在私募股权、对冲基金和风险投资等方面寻求风险。他们可能会更少进行投资，金额也会小得多，或两者兼而有之。所以我认为你说的是可能的，但问题很可能出在这些大学的基金上。

Okay. Well, I have $53 billion dollars by the way. Moving, Harvard's endowment now. So it would be 10%. Can anyone tell me who the largest real estate owner is in San Francisco? You see her. Without looking at on the internet. Oh, no, I know. It's that institute. The Academy of Art University. I knew this because they kept buying things and using them, I think, you know. She used all the profit over the years to buy more real estate and she accumulated the largest real estate portfolio in San Francisco. Sorry. Who is she? The founder, I forgot her name. This is a for-profit university or private or I mean a nonprofit university? Yeah, there's a lot of artists that come out of Academy Art. They work in a lot of different industries, including industrial design, including animation. That's actually- So that's what I'm saying. Is it like RISD or is it like actually an art school? Oh, no, it's a great art school. Yeah. Academy of Art. Anyway, let's keep going.
好的。顺便一提，我有530亿美元。接下来，哈佛大学的捐赠总金额是530亿美元，占比10%。有谁能告诉我，在旧金山，最大的房地产拥有者是谁？你们可以看看谁是她，不要通过互联网查询。噢，不，我知道了。就是那个机构——艺术学院。我知道这一点是因为她们不断购买和利用房地产，我想她们用多年来的利润购买了更多房地产，并拥有了旧金山最大的房地产投资组合。对不起，她是谁？创办人，我忘记她的名字了。这所大学是以营利为目的还是非营利的？是的，很多艺术家毕业于艺术学院。他们从事各行各业，包括工业设计和动画等。这实际上是个什么样的学校，像RISD一样还是纯粹的艺术学校？噢，不，它是一所非常好的艺术学校。艺术学院。总之，我们继续吧。

So look, speaking of STEM, making a big pivot away from art to AI, a couple big news items, you know, the AI frenzy continues here in Silicon Valley. All the way from early to growth stage funding through to M&A events. We saw this week Databricks, which is a privately held data infrastructure company announced that they were acquiring Mosaic ML for $1.3 billion. That headline number is based on a cash and stock purchase price where the value of the stock that was being used to acquire Mosaic ML was based off of the last rounds valuation for Databricks, which was $38 billion from a fundraising that they did in 2021.
所以嘛，说到STEM，从艺术向人工智能（AI）的大转变，有几个重要的新闻，你知道的，AI狂热在硅谷持续蔓延。从早期到成长阶段的资金投资，再到并购事件，我们本周看到了Databricks，一家私有的数据基础设施公司宣布以13亿美元的价格收购了Mosaic ML。这个头条新闻中的金额是基于现金和股票的购买价格计算出来的，其中用于收购Mosaic ML的股票价值是根据Databricks在2021年进行的一轮募资中的估值，即380亿美元。

So arguably the valuation should be lower and the overall purchase price could be considered lower, but that's besides the point. Mosaic ML, as you guys may remember, is a company I mentioned a number of episodes ago led by the founder of Nirvana, which was an early AI business that was acquired by Intel. And then he started Mosaic ML and he offers open source models. I shared the performance data of their most recent announcement on the show a few weeks ago. You know, there's rumors. I don't have any confirmed reports, but there's rumors that Mosaic ML saw their ARR grow from $1 million to $20 million since January. There was other rumors that said they were only at $6 million of revenue. Regardless, Databricks is paying a pretty hefty premium.
所以可以说，估值应该更低，整体购买价格可以考虑更低，但那并不重要。Mosaic ML，你们也许还记得，是我几集前提到过的一家公司，由Nirvana的创始人领导，该公司是一家早期被英特尔收购的人工智能公司。然后他创办了Mosaic ML，提供开源模型。几周前在节目中我分享了他们最新公布的绩效数据。听说他们的年收入从1百万美元增长到了2千万美元，但这只是谣言，我没有任何证实的报告。还有其他的传言称他们只有600万美元的收入。无论如何，Databricks支付了相当高的溢价。

And I think it begs the question, what do data infrastructure database companies end up looking like in the future if AI has to become part of the core infrastructure of every enterprise? And this is creating a big shift. So SACs as our enterprise software investor expert, maybe you can share with us what this means for the sector. Does this buoy excitement for AI infrastructure startups? Does this change the investing landscape? Is it just reinforcing what folks are already doing? I think it's a reinforcement. I mean, the space is probably the hottest space where you're talking about like AI infrastructure for enterprises. I think it's probably the hottest space right now in venture land.
我认为这引出了一个问题，如果AI必须成为每个企业核心基础设施的一部分，那么数据基础设施和数据库公司未来会变得如何？这将引发一场巨大的转变。所以，作为我们的企业软件投资专家，请您与我们分享这对这个行业意味着什么。这是否给AI基础设施初创公司带来了更多的兴奋？这是否改变了投资格局？这是否只是强化了人们已经在做的事情？我认为这是一种强化。我的意思是，现在讨论企业的AI基础设施这个领域可能是最热门的领域。它可能是风险投资领域最热门的领域。

We actually looked at this deal. We had a small allocation there next round. They had a term sheet for a series B emergence was actually going to lead it. This is Mosaic ML. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if I was supposed to be telling you all this, but. No, it's not so much. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, it's fine. This is great. Breaking news. Breaking news. Breaking news. That a term sheet from emergence to raise 50 million at 400 posts. Wow. And we were going to have a small allocation in that. And as I recall, the valuation was somewhere around 30 to 35 times ARR, which actually is not that insane for a very fast growing company in a hot space. So that implies about 10 million of ARR. I don't remember the exact figure, but I think that's sort of the ballpark. But growing very, very quickly, I mean, up from like one or two at the beginning of the year. Right. So I actually understand why someone would want to acquire or invest in this company. Like I said, I think we wanted to invest. And while we were sort of trying our best to get.
实际上，我们看过这笔交易。我们在下一轮中有一个小额拨款。他们已经有了一份系列B的条款表，Emergence实际上将领导这个项目。这是Mosaic ML。是的。是的。我不知道我是否应该告诉你这些，但是没关系。不，没关系。是的，没问题。这太棒了。独家新闻。独家新闻。独家新闻。Emergence有一份条款表，要筹集5000万美元，估值为4亿美元。哇。我们原本打算在其中有一个小额投资。记得当时估值大约是年度收入的30到35倍，对于一个极速增长的热门公司来说并不是太不合理。这意味着大约有1000万美元的年度收入。我不记得具体数字，但我认为大致是这样。但是他们增长非常迅速，年初时只有一两个人。是的，我理解为什么有人想要收购或投资这家公司。正如我所说，我们本来想要投资的。而我们当时正在努力争取。

You didn't say anything when I talked about them on the show a few weeks ago. You were just sitting there mums a word or. Actually, I knew that this deal was basically in the works because the founder called us up and he had already promised us a small allocation around, and he veined it. And he called up and said, actually, I've got this deal. So we're putting the round on hold. And so I didn't think I should say anything because obviously it was still ongoing. But yeah, we knew about this deal that was kind of coming down the pipe. I didn't know for sure that it would happen. But yeah, we heard it was in the ballpark of this like 1.2, 1.3 billion dollar number, which like you said, because Databricks is a private stock. Maybe it's only. It's half of that or 750 or something like that. Who knows? It's still a great deal.
在几周前的节目中，当我谈到他们时，你什么都没有说。你就坐在那里不吭声。实际上，我知道这项交易基本上已经在进行中，因为创始人给我们打电话，并已经承诺给我们一小部分配额。他打电话来说，实际上，我有这个交易。所以我们把这轮交易搁置了。所以我觉得我不应该说什么，因为显然这件事还在进行中。但是是的，我们知道这个交易大致在进行中。我不能确定它是否会发生。但是是的，我们听说大致在12亿到13亿美元左右，就像你所说的，因为Databricks是一家私人股份公司。也许只有一半，750亿左右，或者类似的数字。谁知道呢？这仍然是一笔很好的交易。

But you know, a lot of people are saying it's a crazy deal. I don't think it's a crazy deal because before this happened, after an event signed the term sheet for the series B, an investor came over the top to invest in a $700 million valuation. So people were kind of going crazy. Now I don't think that's necessarily a rational behavior. I think that's more of evidence of a mania going on. But I think that what he got offered is obviously a fantastic deal. And I think what it's evidence of is that these big enterprise infra companies are going to try and build an end to end tool chain here. And I think Mosaic ML had a very, very important part of the tool set, which is training up these models, basically maximizing GPU efficiency, because GPUs are basically the scarce item right now. We have a GPU shortage and it's probably not going to get better for a year or two. We have that. So this is a very important part of the stack. And I think it's probably a smart acquisition for both data breaks.
但是你知道，很多人都说这是一个疯狂的交易。我不认为这是一个疯狂的交易，因为在此之前，我们签署了B轮的条款，并且一位投资者以7亿美元的估值来投资。所以人们有点疯狂。现在我并不认为这是一种理性的行为，我认为这更多是一种狂热的证明。但我认为他所得到的提议显然是一个很棒的交易。而且，我认为这表明这些大型企业基础设施公司将尝试构建一个端到端的工具链。我认为Mosaic ML在工具集中起着非常非常重要的作用，即训练这些模型，基本上是最大化GPU的效率，因为目前GPU是稀缺物品。我们面临着GPU短缺的问题，而且可能在一两年内不会好转。我们有这个问题。所以这是整个架构中非常重要的一部分。我认为这对Data Breaks来说可能是一个明智的收购。

Yeah, it seems to me, I mean, I remember Snowflake, which competes with Databricks, also acquired NIVA, which was founded by one of my colleagues, a guy I work with, a new, really great guy, sweetheart. For $150 million last month, that deal was announced. And the pattern recognition that seems to emerge here is that if you're in the data infrastructure business, it seems like it's becoming critical to level up, that it's not just about storing and moving and manipulating data, but the interpretation of data through models and the tooling to build those models becomes a critical component of all of these toolkits that these software companies have to provide to their enterprise software companies. And it's a big leveling up that's necessary, which seems to me there's other companies out there like them that are also going to need to strap on tools like this to make themselves competitive in this market scape, which means that there are more acquisitions still to come.
嗯，我觉得，我的意思是，我记得Snowflake，与Databricks竞争的公司，也收购了NIVA，这是由我的一个同事创办的，一个我与之合作的新人，一个真的很棒的人，心肝宝贝。上个月以1.5亿美元的价格宣布了这笔交易。而这里似乎出现的模式是，如果你从事数据基础设施业务，提升至关重要，不仅仅是存储、移动和操作数据，而是通过模型对数据进行解释和构建这些模型的工具成为所有这些软件公司必须提供给企业软件公司的关键组成部分。这是一个必需的重大提升，意味着其他公司也需要像它们一样采用这样的工具，以在这个市场上保持竞争力，这意味着还有更多的收购即将发生。

Yeah. Chema, JCal, you guys agree or have a different point of view? Looking at it, it's a big number, the headline number, but I agree with SACs, the actual numbers half the number. So if it was, you know, if you look at the number of engineers they had based on LinkedIn data and pitchbook data, probably 60, 70 employees, 80 employees and then 40, 50 of them are engineers. So that puts it at $30 million per engineer. And that's one way to look at these acquisitions. And I think, you know, probably three to $10 million per engineer for like really high-end engineers is more of the going price. But if this is half that amount because they bought it with monopoly money, in other words, they're 2021 price for their company, it's great. And then they get nailed at Freiberg.
是的，Chema，JCal，你们同意还是有不同的观点？看着它，这是个大数字，头条数字，但我同意SACs的观点，实际数字是一半。所以，如果你根据LinkedIn和Pitchbook的数据来看，他们大约有60、70名员工，其中40、50名是工程师。这就意味着每个工程师的价值为3000万美元。这是看待这些收购的一种方式。我认为，对于高级工程师，每个工程师的价格可能是300到1000万美元。但如果这个数字只有一半，因为他们用虚拟货币购买，换句话说，这是他们公司2021年的价格，那就很好了。然后他们在Freiberg被点名批评。

What's happening is this layer of natural language on top of any service, whether something as simple as Yelp or something as complicated as a giant financial company with tons of transaction data, being able to talk to it and understand it and then have your machine learning team build tools so business owners don't have to hire data scientists. The actual business leaders can talk to the data and get back answers or just say, hey, tell me about our customers. How have they changed over the year? And then, hey, that's pretty interesting. Tell me more about our customers and, you know, how are they reacting to these three new products? And you will get back in intelligence that previously was unable to be accessed.
发生的事情是在任何服务之上，无论是像Yelp这样简单的服务，还是像一个拥有大量交易数据的庞大金融公司，都有一层自然语言的层面，可以与之对话、理解并让您的机器学习团队构建工具，这样业务主管就不必雇佣数据科学家了。实际的企业领导人可以与数据对话，获取答案，或者只是询问：“嘿，告诉我一下关于我们的顾客。他们在一年里有什么变化？”然后，“嘿，这真的很有趣，再告诉我更多关于我们的顾客的信息，还有他们对这三个新产品的反应如何？”于是，您将得到以前无法获得的情报。

And so I was just at Sequoia yesterday with or two days ago with the latest seven graduates from our accelerator. We bring them to meet with SACs and his team. We bring them to meet with Sequoia. And when we were at Sequoia, I realized that of the seven companies, four of them would not have been possible before these machine learning APIs were available and open AIs but one, there are now in the companies I'm talking to their, their trialing Freiberg on average, six, seven, eight language models before they pick one and they're not picking open AI every time.
所以昨天或前天我刚刚和我们加速器的最新七名毕业生一起去了Sequoia。我们带他们去见SAC和他的团队，也带他们去见Sequoia。当我们在Sequoia的时候，我意识到在这七家公司中，如果没有这些机器学习API和开放的AI，其中四家公司是不可能存在的。而现在，我正在与一些公司交谈，他们平均要试用六个、七个，甚至八个语言模型，才会选择一个，而且并不是每次都选择开放的AI。

Putting that aside, these businesses were not possible before this technology was introduced and available via API in the last six to 12 months. And I think there's a bunch of businesses that economically would not work, that now work. I can give one example. There are countless meetings that are recorded over Zoom, right? Like a local school board meeting. Well nobody could ever make a database of all the discussions going on at local school boards and then analyze all them. But now because all of those are saved on Zoom and they occur on Zoom and they're available for public record, you can ingest every single one of those and then build a Bloomberg terminal of every discussion happening at every school board everywhere in the United States and do that with chat GPT or any of the language models and then get really great insights from it. That would be too costly to transcribe at $100 every hour or two and normalized, let alone to analyze.
抛开这个问题，这些业务在最近6到12个月内，由于这项技术的引入并通过API可用，所以才成为可能。我认为有很多在经济上原本无法运行的业务，现在通过这种技术变得可行。我可以举一个例子。现在有很多会议都通过Zoom进行录制，比如地方教育委员会的会议。以前人们无法建立一个涵盖所有地方教育委员会讨论的数据库，并对其进行分析。但现在，因为这些会议都被保存在Zoom上，可以在公共记录中获取，可以将每一条记录进行整理，然后使用chat GPT或其他语言模型，构建出一个包括美国各地地方教育委员会的所有讨论的Bloomberg终端，并从中获得非常有价值的洞察。而以每小时100美元的费用进行转录和规范化，更别提分析了，这是无法承受的。

And so I'm looking at businesses as an investor, what I'm looking at right now is businesses that were previously not economically viable before this technology and then that are now economically viable. If that makes sense and I'm just looking at each company under that lens right now and I'm finding a lot of interesting startups. They seem to have that in common.
因此，作为一名投资者，我正在关注企业，我目前关注的是那些在这项技术出现之前以前在经济上不可行，而现在变得经济可行的企业。如果这样说得通的话，我现在只是以这个角度来看待每家公司，而我发现了很多有趣的创业公司。它们似乎有一个共同点。

Chumat, similar news supporting this very quick evolution further up the value stack. So we were just talking about these companies that are providing effectively tooling as infrastructure. A little bit more up the value stack is inflection AI which was started by Mustafa Salehman and Reid Hoffman who was a co-founder while Mustafa was working with him as a venture partner at Graylock. But Mustafa as you guys know was the co-founder of DeepMind which Google bought for $4 million really created the core of Google's AI capability and is considered one of the kind of preeminent thought leaders and entrepreneurs that has built in this space.
Chumat，类似的新闻支持了价值链更高层次的快速发展。所以我们刚刚谈到那些提供工具基础设施的公司。在价值链更高层次上，有一个名为Inflection AI的公司，由Mustafa Salehman和Reid Hoffman创办，而Mustafa在Graylock担任风险合伙人期间与Reid Hoffman合作。但是众所周知，Mustafa是DeepMind的联合创始人，而DeepMind则被Google以4亿美元收购，实际上构建了Google的核心AI能力，并被认为是这个领域中杰出的思想领袖和企业家之一。

He started inflection and the business just announced today that they've just closed a $1.3 billion funding round led by Microsoft, Reid Hoffman, Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, NVIDIA with an intention of building the largest AI cluster in the world. 22,000 NVIDIA H100 as part of the build out. But I think you've shared Chumat historically that these big funding rounds for these AI businesses that haven't necessarily even launched product yet don't make sense. Is this still kind of reinforce your point and what's your read on the inflection funding?
他开始弯曲语调，而这家公司今天刚刚宣布由微软、里德·霍夫曼、比尔·盖茨、埃里克·施密特和NVIDIA牵头完成了13亿美元的融资，目的是建立世界上最大的人工智能集群。其中包括22,000台NVIDIA H100作为构建的一部分。但是我认为你过去大多数时候都认为，对于这些甚至还没有推出产品的人工智能公司来说，这样的大规模融资是没有意义的。这是否仍然印证了你的观点？你对这个弯曲融资有何看法？

Well, the list price of an H100 is about $30,000 but the street price so it's very hard to get it. So if you go to eBay and try to buy an H100 it's like $40,000 or $45,000. So if you have a $22,000 cluster of H100s that's about $900 million of CapEx. Just that. And then all the sundry stuff around it, call it roughly plus or minus a billion dollars. And so of the $1.5 billion they've raised, let's say a billion goes into building this 22,000 node cluster. You have $500 million for SG&A. And so what that leaves behind is basically $2.5 billion of enterprise value for their chatbot.
嗯，H100的标价大约是30,000美元，但市场价格就很难说了，所以很难买到。如果你去eBay上试图购买H100，价格可能会高达40,000美元或45,000美元。所以，如果你有22,000个H100的群集，总共价值约为9亿美元的资本支出。仅此而已。然后还有周边的各种杂项费用，大约再加减10亿美元。所以根据他们筹集的15亿美元中，假设有10亿美元用于建造这个22,000节点的群集。剩下的5亿美元用于销售、广告和行政费用。这样，他们的聊天机器人所剩的企业价值大约为25亿美元。

So I don't know, I mean I've never used Pi has any of you guys used it? You guys know if it's good? I'm sure you've experimented with it. Have you experimented with it or not really? Which one? Pi? That's what their chatbot is called. Pi. I think it's like hey, Pi.com or something. I think I did try it once and it was not memorable. Oh, you mean Po? No, not Po. No, no, no, that's a horror. That's a horror. Pi is like the personal one where you talk to it and ask you, hey, how are you doing?
所以我不知道，我是说我从来没用过Pi，有你们用过吗？你们知道它好不好吗？我确定你们都试过它。你们试过它了吗？还是没试过？是哪个？Pi？那是他们的聊天机器人名字，Pi。我记得好像是嘿，Pi.com之类的。我想我试过一次，但没太有印象。哦，你是说Po？不，不是Po。不，不，那是吓人的。Pi是那个私人的，你跟它聊天问它，嘿，你好吗？

Our concept is you have this one relationship, so it's like one chat thread. It's not kind of how I like to work with the I use threads and I share threads with my team. So I'm not a fan of this. You have one relationship with one assistant. I think the thing is it's interesting to note that very rarely when you invest money in the billions of dollars does the cap X or purchase of one specific form of equipment take up literally 25% of the enterprise value. That's atypical, at least for a startup. If you're buying a fixed plant of a slow cash for generating business, then maybe a bunch of that has some value.
我们的概念是你只有这一个关系，就像一个聊天线程一样。这不是我喜欢的工作方式，我喜欢使用线程，并与我的团队共享线程。所以我对此不是很喜欢。你只有一个助手的关系。我认为有趣的是，当你投资数十亿美元时，很少有一项特定形式的设备的购买占据了企业价值的25％。这是不典型的，至少对于初创公司而言是如此。如果你购买的是慢速现金生成业务的固定设备，那么这些设备的一部分可能有一定的价值。

So that's what stood out to me and all of these things. Freeburg is again, increasingly, this is all just a pass through to Nvidia. It's probably in some ways a pass through to the big cloud providers. So whenever I see a chip maker and a cloud provider come together to put in a lot of money, it's essentially round tripping cash. They're giving the money, which then they use to buy their services and then you're just pumping revenue. So I hope it works. Jim, I'm giving you the best, but that's the.
这些都是我关注到的事情。弗里堡一直以来都是作为通往英伟达的一个中转站，而且这种情况似乎在不断增加。实际上，这也是通往大型云服务提供商的一个中转站。所以每当我看到一个芯片制造商与云服务提供商一起投入大量资金，实际上就是将资金循环流转。他们给出了资金，然后用这些资金购买服务，进而产生营收。所以我希望能有所成效。吉姆，我希望你能够最好地发挥作用，但这就是。

We just talked about where the infrastructure companies that are increasingly looking like more commodity service providers, if they don't up level with AI tooling, acquiring Mosaic ML and acquiring NIVA, do you think that that's an indication of more M&A to come? And if so, doesn't that justify the increased funding, the increased valuation and the activity that we're seeing in the early stage with some of these businesses? I think for sure there's going to be more M&A. And I think the valuations will be high, not because these companies have a lot of revenue yet, but because it's very strategic for these big and for companies to assemble the end-to-end tool chain.
我们刚刚谈论到了基础设施公司的情况，它们越来越像是普通的服务提供商，如果它们不利用人工智能工具进行升级，收购Mosaic ML和NIVA，你认为这是否预示着更多的并购交易？如果是这样，难道这不证明了早期阶段这些企业正面临着增加的资金、估值和活动？我认为肯定会有更多的并购交易发生。我认为估值会很高，不是因为这些公司已经有了很多收入，而是因为对于这些大型公司来说，组装端到端的工具链具有很大的战略意义。

I think we should explain to folks what that means. Enterprise software companies provide software to businesses that are not traditionally technology companies. They also provide software to other businesses to help them build new tools, to help them build out their business. So an enterprise software company can sell to United Airlines or can sell to Visa or can sell to Ford, and that software can then be used by that company to build tools that are powered by the database or powered by the data analytics or increasingly powered by AI tools. And so they can build AI applications and AI capabilities into their business, whether it's United Airlines or Expedia or Visa or whomever. And that's why these companies are so critical in terms of enabling the transformation of industries with AI tooling and why getting AI tooling into their capability set is so critical right now.
我认为我们应该向大家解释一下这句话的意思。企业软件公司为那些传统上不是科技公司的企业提供软件。它们也为其他企业提供软件，帮助它们建立新的工具，帮助它们扩展业务。因此，企业软件公司可以向联合航空公司，或者Visa，或者福特销售软件，然后这些公司可以使用该软件构建由数据库、数据分析或者越来越多由人工智能工具驱动的工具。因此，无论是联合航空公司、Expedia、Visa还是其他公司，他们都可以在自己的业务中构建人工智能应用和人工智能能力。这就是为什么这些公司对于通过人工智能工具实现行业转型如此关键，以及为什么现在将人工智能工具纳入它们的能力集是如此重要。

It's important to note though, guys, that whenever you have the emergence of a new sector, Saks, I think you are right that M&A goes up, but it tends to be that the valuations go down. Peak M&A froth happens at the beginning of the cycle when hype is at maximum and facts are at the minimum. And that's okay. That's good for the startup. It's marginally negative for the existing shareholder of a large company. And then over time, it gets itself sorted out when the facts are more obvious. So you guys remember when the optical networking craze, they had these multi-billion dollar acquisitions and where did they go? They went nowhere. They just disappeared. We actually have a market map that we did that I think can explain this concept of an end-to-end tool chain.
要注意的是，朋友们，每当出现一个新的领域时，合并与收购活动确实会增加，但估值往往会下降。合并与收购的高峰期始于周期的开始，当炒作达到最高点而事实信息最少时。而这是可以理解的。这对于初创公司来说是有利的，但对于大公司的现有股东来说则稍微不利。然而，随着时间的推移，当事实更加明显时，情况会得到解决。你们还记得光网络热潮时的情景吗？当时进行了数十亿美元的收购，但结果又如何？它们消失了。我们实际上制作了一张市场地图，可以解释这个端到端工具链的概念。

So this is a slide that our growth team shout out to Mike Robinson and Kim Mcaburah. They put this together in preparation, part of the investment memo for Mosaic. I think to explain the point you were making, like why do enterprises need the services? One really simple way of thinking about it right now is that every enterprise would like to roll out its own chat GPT. They would all like to have their own internal version of chat GPT where their employees, for example, could ask questions and get answers. That's where all the action is right now. Every enterprise would buy that tomorrow if it existed in the way it did. The idea would be that any employee in the company could ask questions to the AI model the way you can ask chat GPT questions and it would have all the enterprises data and it would also understand their permissions and have all the security settings so that only though I feel could get the right information. That's the kind of intelligence they want to unlock. I mean, there are lots of other use cases as well, but that's a really simple one. A corporate oracle. So if I'm an HR, I can ask, hey, tell me about our compensation. A copilot. Totally copilot for the CEO. I think there's going to be lots of these. I think the sales team is going to have their own copilot. I think the marketing team is going to have their own copilot and. Customer support has it already. Customer support will have it. Engineers love their own copilot. So there's going to be a lot of these, but I think enterprises want one at the level of the call of the company, intranet where employees could just ask questions. But they do not want to share their data with open AI. That's very clear. They want to roll out their own models.
所以这是我们的增长团队为Mike Robinson和Kim Mcaburah准备的幻灯片之一，作为Mosaic的投资备忘录的一部分。我认为要解释你所说的观点，即为什么企业需要这些服务？现在有一种非常简单的思路，每个企业都希望推出自己的聊天GPT（生成式预训练模型）。他们都希望拥有自己内部版本的聊天GPT，以便他们的员工可以提问并获得答案。这就是当前的重点所在。如果存在这样的产品，所有企业明天都会购买它。想象一下，企业的任何员工都可以像你问聊天GPT问题一样向AI模型提问，它将拥有所有企业的数据，并且还能理解他们的权限和所有的安全设置，以便只有获得权限的人才能获取正确的信息。这就是他们想要开发的智能。当然了，还有很多其他用例，但这是一个非常简单的例子。一种企业的神谕。如果我是人力资源部门，我可以问：“告诉我有关我们的薪酬情况。”一种共同驾驶员。完全可以成为CEO的副驾驶员。我觉得这类用例会有很多。销售团队会有他们自己的共同驾驶员，市场团队也会有，客户支持已经有了，工程师们喜欢有自己的共同驾驶员。所以会有很多这类用例，但我认为企业想要一个在公司级别的内部网，员工可以随时提问。但他们不想与OpenAI分享他们的数据，这一点非常明确。他们想要推出自己的模型。

So the question is, well, how do you roll out your own model? And what the shows here is the different piece of the stack that you have to have. So first you capture all of your data. You got to label it to be classified right for the model. You got to store it somewhere. Then you need to get one of these open source AI models off the shelf. And there's probably the most prominent site for this called Hugging Face, which already has something like, I think, a $2 billion valuation. That's another really crazy valuation to ARR multiple. But Hugging Face has all the open source models. It's very active. And so people grab the latest open source model. That's the best fit for them. And then they need to train that model. And that's really where Mosaic played. And there's a ton of activity right now in this last mile problem of how do you customize a model to make it suitable for your use, whether you're an enterprise, whether you're a customer service team, whether you're a SaaS app that wants to incorporate AI capabilities into your app. That's where all the action is right now is customizing these open source models. That then leads to basically being able to get the right inferences. And there's a separate category around hardware that is, we don't play there. But this is the end-to-end tool chain. I think these big tech companies are going to be racing to put this whole thing together. To fill it out. Yeah. And that's so there'll be more M&As, your prediction, which means more startup valuation, boom and more capital deploying.
那么问题是，你如何推出自己的模型呢？下面展示的是你必须具备的不同组成部分。首先，你需要捕获所有数据。你必须对其进行标注，以便为模型进行分类。你还需要将其存储在某个地方。然后你需要从这些开源的AI模型中选择一个。这方面最知名的网站应该是Hugging Face，它的估值已经达到了大约200亿美元，这也相当于一个疯狂的估值。Hugging Face拥有所有的开源模型，并且非常活跃。人们会选择与他们最匹配的最新开源模型。然后他们需要对该模型进行训练，这就是Mosaic所进行的工作。目前在针对最后一英里难题上有很多活动，即如何定制模型以适应你的用途，无论是企业、客户服务团队还是SaaS应用希望将AI功能整合到应用中，这是目前所有活动的焦点。这进而实现了得到正确推断的能力。还有一个硬件的独立类别，我们并不涉及其中。但这是一个端到端的工具链。我认为这些大型科技公司将竞相将所有组件整合在一起。填补这个空缺。是的。因此，可能会有更多的并购，这意味着更多的初创公司估值增长以及更多资本投入。

There was a couple of articles this week. And Chumat, this is your red meat as much as Ukraine is, Saxas, because you've talked about this at length. Social messaging startup IRL is shutting down after a board investigation found 95% of its claimed 20 million users were actually fake. This is a company that in June of 2021 raised $170 million Series C at a valuation of over a billion dollars, making it one of the many proclaimed unicorns of Silicon Valley led by Softbank's Vision Fund. The investor who was sitting on the board said that they didn't know if we've ever given an investment term sheet to a startup faster than Softbank gave to IRL at the time.
这周有几篇文章。Chumat和Saxas，这对你们来说就像乌克兰一样，是你们热血沸腾的话题。社交通讯初创公司IRL在董事会调查后宣布关闭，因为调查发现其声称的2000万用户中有95%实际上是虚假的。这家公司在2021年6月进行了1.7亿美元的C轮融资，估值超过10亿美元，成为硅谷众多号称独角兽的公司之一，由软银愿景基金主导投资。在董事会上的一位投资者表示，他们不知道是否曾经有比软银当时投资IRL更快的投资条款表。

At the same time, different story. But in the same week, a company called Biju, which Chumat you have talked about in the past, was once valued at $22 billion and claimed to be India's most valuable startup is in turmoil as shareholders and creditors are seeking to dilute the founder. He's rushing to find capital and raise a billion dollars to try and buoy the company, process one of the investors, mark the company's valuation down to 5.1 billion to down 75%.
然而，在同一周内，另一个完全不同的故事发生了。一家名为Biju的公司，就像你以前提到过的，曾被估值220亿美元，宣称是印度最有价值的初创公司，如今却正面临困境，股东和债权人寻求削弱创始人的权益。他正在急于寻找资金，并筹集10亿美元来振兴公司，其中一位投资者将公司估值下调至51亿美元，降幅高达75%。

I guess the question is overall, are we still seeing this kind of turmoil in Silicon Valley from the Zirp era funding of startups in stark juxtaposition to the excitement and the frenzy around AI? It's a characteristic of the exact same thing, meaning if you replaced AI with a lot of crypto, it's the exact same thing. If you replaced AI with coworking, if you replaced AI with synthetic biology, if you replaced AI with SaaS, this has all happened before.
我觉得问题的总体来说是，从Zirp（零利率政策）时代对初创企业的资金支持，与围绕人工智能（AI）的兴奋和狂热形成鲜明对比的硅谷的动荡，我们是否还在看到这种动荡。这是同一件事的特点，意味着如果你将AI替换为许多加密货币，它是完全相同的事情。如果你用合作办公取代AI，如果你用合成生物学取代AI，如果你用SaaS取代AI，这些事情都已经发生过了。

I think it's important to identify what this is. What this is, is that there aren't enough checks and balances, and there are fundamentally people who are deeply inexperienced, who are in the wrong job. In the few key moments where the venture capitalist is supposed to add value, that person is ill-equipped and unprepared. Why? Because they were the VP of X, Y, and Z at some startup, and they got hired through no fault of their own into a dynamic because these venture funds wanted to raise larger and larger amounts of money. What happens? You even know how to ask the basic questions or even more insidious, you don't have the courage to say the hard thing.
我认为识别这是什么很重要。这就是缺乏足够的制衡和平衡，而且实际上有些人深深缺乏经验，他们从事了错误的工作。在风险投资家应该发挥作用的几个关键时刻，这些人缺乏准备和能力。为什么呢？因为他们曾在某个初创公司担任副总裁，就这样无意中被雇用到一个动态环境中，因为这些风险基金想要筹集更多的资金。结果会怎样呢？你甚至都不知道如何提出基本问题，甚至更隐秘的是，你没有勇气说出艰难的事情。

Things happen that are frankly inexcusable. In the case of one of these companies, and I've mentioned this before, they approached us for financing. When we asked for a data room, we got a Google Doc link to a spreadsheet. There's no reasonable world in which a company is that unsophisticated when it comes to understanding their business. A data room should include an enormous amount of operational and financial metrics that you can use to come to your own conclusion, so that you can present it transparently to the investor. The idea that boards wouldn't even hold these companies accountable is just a sign that the board members themselves are pretty fundamentally inexperienced people.
有些事情发生的确是无法原谅的。在其中一家公司的情况下，我之前提到过，他们向我们寻求融资。当我们要求一个数据室时，他们给了我们一个谷歌文档链接，里面是一个电子表格。就企业对于理解自己业务的专业程度而言，这样的情况毫无道理。一个数据室应该包括大量的运营和财务指标，供您自己得出结论，并透明地向投资者展示。董事会竟然不追究这些公司的责任，这只能说明董事成员本身非常缺乏经验。

I think the thing that we do, which is a mistake, is we say, oh, well, X, Y, and Z firm led this deal. Yeah, that may be true. But really what it means is that firm, in a grab to get the money, hired some person that checks and boxes, put them in the job, that person led around, and there just wasn't any infrastructure to either teach that person or then that person to have the courage to hold the founder responsible. That will play out in AI as well. It's just that we're at the beginning of the hype cycle, right? Because we replace AI again, as I said, with any of these other things, we sat here a little bit hand-wringing when we saw these crazy valuations for these NFT projects. Where are those now? You name it.
我认为我们犯了一个错误，那就是我们说，哦，是X、Y和Z公司领导了这笔交易。是的，也许事实如此。但实际上，这意味着该公司为了获得资金，雇佣了一些检查和盒勾选的人，并将其安排在这个职位上，这个人被领导着四处转悠，却没有任何基础设施来教导他们或使他们有勇气追究创始人的责任。这在人工智能领域也会发生。只是我们目前处于炒作周期的开始阶段，对吧？因为我们可以将人工智能替换成其他任何东西，就像我之前说过的那样，当我们看到这些NFT项目的疯狂估值时，我们有些自怨自艾。它们现在在哪里？无论你提什么。

This is about fundamentally inexperienced people doing a job that seems pretty easy from the outside. But in practical reality, there are only a few legends in our business. Most people, and I think it was shy Goldman that did the math on this, most people do not know how to run these businesses well. Nick will find that fleet you can show. I think it's like 2.5% of all of the funds that are in pitchbooks over 800 of them have ever generated more than 3X and 2 funds. So this is a hard business, it turns out. You can't just wake up and be an investor, it turns out. That's what we're finding. So I don't know. It's not very surprising in the end.
这篇文章讲述的是对于那些看起来非常简单的工作，实际上却是由根本没有经验的人来执行。但事实上，在我们这个行业中只有少数几个传奇人物。大多数人，并且我认为是Goldman（译者注：可能是指高盛公司）计算出来的，大多数人并不知道如何经营这些业务。尼克会发现那些能够证明其价值的投资组合。我认为只有大约2.5%的基金在800个展示资料中生成了超过3倍收益的情况，而且只有2个基金实现了这一目标。所以，这是一个艰难的行业，事实证明，你不能只是一觉醒来就成为一名投资者。这就是我们的发现。所以我不知道。最后这并不令人很惊讶。

None of this is surprising. I think Chamop had a really good point in the middle there is that there is a generation of venture capitalists who were added during the boom, who were operators. But they've never been taught to have the discipline of capital allocators. And one of those key pieces of discipline is asking uncomfortable questions and doing uncomfortable diligence. And you can trust people, but you need to verify. That is a key part of the job. You can trust the founders, but you have to verify that the data you have is correct.
这并不令人意外。我认为Chamop在其中有一个非常好的观点，就是在繁荣时期有一批风险投资家加入了行业，他们曾是运营者。但他们从未被教导过作为资本配置者的纪律。其中一个关键的纪律就是提出令人不舒服的问题，并进行不舒服的尽职调查。你可以相信别人，但你需要进行核实。这是工作的一个关键部分。你可以相信创始人，但你必须验证你所拥有的数据是否正确。

The fact that SoftBank did this, that incredible valuation and the person who did this deal never checked that the customers were real makes you unfit to serve in the job. And I will do diligence. And during that time period, Freberg, I had many founders say to me, you're asking for more diligence than the lead. And this deal is closing. And we are oversubscribed. And I said, okay. And they said, okay, so you're not going to require this. And I said, oh, no, we require this diligence. We want to see your very basic stuff, your bank statement, your P and L. We want to talk to you once you give us a list of your first thousand, give us a list of 500 customers from last month, we'll give you five numbers. We're going to talk to five random customers. People did not want to do this stuff.
软银做出了这样的决定，以令人难以置信的估值来进行交易，并且负责这笔交易的人居然没有核实客户的真实性，这使你不适合担任这个职位。我会进行尽职调查。在那段时间里，弗雷伯格，有很多创始人对我说，你要求的尽职调查比领头人还要多。而这笔交易即将完成，我们的超额认购。我说，好的。他们说，那你就不需要这么多要求了。我说，哦，不，我们必须进行这个尽职调查。我们要看到你的基本文件，比如银行对账单，损益表。一旦你给出前一千个客户的名单，再给我们提供上个月的五百个客户名单，我们会从中随机选择五个客户进行交流。人们不愿意做这些事情。

We do that this work at our firm when we start to own 5, 10% of this and we train our founders to do to be ready for proper diligence. All that diligence is happening now. Now, in the early stages, there's not much to go on, but you can check stuff. During this period, people, founders used the hot market to not participate in the due diligence process.
当我们开始拥有这家公司的5%和10%时，我们会在我们的公司进行这项工作，并培训我们的创始人，以便为适当的审查做好准备。所有的审查工作现在正在进行。在早期阶段，没有太多的信息可供参考，但你可以检查一些东西。在这段时间里，人们利用火热的市场不参与尽职调查流程。

And when you look at companies, a lot of times people will suspend disbelief. This company, by you, I don't know a ton about it, but it seems to have like an educational app like a company, brilliant.org that Chamath and I are early investors in and Chamath incubated. Great, great business.
当你看待公司时，很多时候人们会暂时搁置怀疑。这家公司，就你而言，我不太清楚太多，但它似乎有一个类似于我们和Chamath早期投资并孵化的brilliant.org的教育应用的公司。非常棒的企业。

But then their business and their revenue seems to be based on a series of like, cool mon like in-person instruction. That's not a high-growth margin business. Sorry, if you have to have a storefront, you're not a software business anymore. And so people started giving valuations and this is the second part and I'll just wrap on this.
然而，他们的业务和收入似乎是基于一系列的像现场指导一样的酷玩意。这不是一个高增长边际业务。抱歉，如果你必须有实体店面，你就不再是一个软件业务了。因此，人们开始给出估值，这是第二部分，我就结束在这里了。

They're giving valuations to these companies that were real world businesses, that were low margin businesses, direct to consumer, whatever it was, they suspended disbelief and they gave them valuations for high growth, high growth margin businesses. And that was another mistake.
他们给予那些过去是真实商业实体、利润率低、直接面向消费者的公司估值，无论是什么情况，他们都对其高速增长和高利润率的业务保持着信任。而这是另一个错误。

And you put those two things together, not doing diligence and then just misvaluing of actual assets. That's the clean up work that's been, that's going on right now. And it takes years. I mean, it took decades for them to pinch Bernie made up. It can take 10 years for these frauds to come out. There was a guy who kept telling the SEC about Bernie Madoff. I think he was like nine years since the first time he let them know that the perfect returns were just not possible statistically. So it takes time, but they're picking these folks up everywhere. Doquan got picked up in Montenegro, the guy from Luna. And it's going to take a decade to clean up all of the fraud in our space.
而且你把这两件事放在一起，不去做调查工作，然后错误估值实际资产。这就是正在进行的清理工作。这需要数年的时间。我是说，他们用了几十年的时间才揭穿伯尼·麦道夫的骗局。这些欺诈行为可能需要十年的时间才会暴露出来。有一个人一直在向证券交易委员会报告伯尼·麦道夫的情况。我想他大约花了九年的时间，从第一次向他们指出完美回报在统计上是不可能实现的开始。所以这需要时间，但他们正在全球范围内抓捕这些人。Doquan在黑山被抓，Luna的那个人也被抓了。清理我们这个领域的所有欺诈可能需要十年的时间。

I think this was sort of mentioned by Chamath, but I think it needs to be a bigger point, which is the influence of fund size on these decisions. I mean, craft funds are in the six to 700 million range. So when we write a check, it's usually 10, 15, $20 million check in a series A company. That's like a big check for us. We're really going to sweat that decision.
我认为Chamath在某种程度上提到了这个问题，但我认为这需要成为一个更重要的观点，那就是基金规模对这些决策的影响。我的意思是，我们的创业基金通常在六到七亿美元的范围内。所以当我们给一家A轮公司开支票时，通常是一千万、一千五百万或两千万美元的支票。对我们来说，这是一笔很大的支出，我们会对这个决定非常慎重。

For SoftBank, a 10 to $20 million check in a $100 billion fund, which is what they had, it doesn't even make sense. It's a waste of their time. It's not even a rounding error for them to basically make a decision. It's like a $2,000 check for you. Yeah, exactly.
对于软银来说，在一个1000亿美元的基金中得到一个1000万至2000万美元的支票，这根本就没有意义。这只是浪费他们的时间。基本上，这对他们来说不值一提，不需要做决策。就好像给你一张2000美元的支票一样。是的，完全正确。

So for them, they had to write $200 million checks to justify their time managing $100 billion. And so the mistake when they make a mistake is 20 times bigger than it should be. That should have been maybe a $10 million mistake, not a $200 million mistake, but their fund size forced them to basically write these gigantic checks. And they were writing them into companies that were effectively seed stage or series A companies. If it was into a growth stage company, I think that's fine. There's a lot more data and there's a lot more customer references that you can check at a later stage company.
所以对他们来说，他们不得不签发2亿美元的支票来证明他们管理1千亿美元的时间的价值。所以当他们犯错时，错误变得比它原本应该的20倍大。本来应该只是一笔1000万美元的错误，而不是2亿美元的错误，但是他们的基金规模迫使他们签发这些巨大的支票。而他们签发这些支票是给那些处在种子阶段或A轮的公司。如果是给处于成长阶段的公司，我认为那是可以接受的。在后期的公司，有更多的数据和客户证明可以进行核查。

By the way, the number one part of diligence, I'd say for us, other than looking at metrics, which anyone can do, is the offshoot references. Talking to customers from a list that you figured out yourself, not from the company itself, is probably the single most important qualitative part of. Of diligence. So I don't know what happened here, but it's not stated explicitly, but I think it's important.
顺便说一句，对于我们而言，除了分析数据，这是每一个人都能做到的事情之外，勤勉的最重要的一部分要算是参考意见。与我们自己找出来的客户进行交流，而不是依赖公司本身提供的信息，可能是勤勉过程中最重要的定性部分。虽然没有明确说明发生了什么事情，但我认为这很重要。

David, you have credibility. So when you say something, Saks, people listen, because you have bona fides that are undeniable. Same thing with J Cal, same thing with you, Freeberg. I think, you know, and this may sound mean, but it's like most of these people are just XYZ middle level VPs from a startup. And that's a great thing. But it's not necessarily going to give you the gravitas, especially if that's not what you are forced to do to help build that company.
大卫，你有可信度。所以当你说话时，Saks的人会听，因为你有无可置疑的真实经历。同样适用于J Cal，你也一样，Freeberg。我想，你们知道，这可能听起来有点刻薄，但大多数这些人只是来自初创公司的XYZ中层副总裁。这是一件好事。但这并不一定会给予你足够的权威，特别是如果这不是你被迫做的事情来帮助建立公司的话。

And when push comes to shove inside of a boardroom or in the middle of diligence, there has to be conflict. I think it's a necessary feature of good decisions. And that conflict arises internally within your investment team, but it also has to come externally with the executives of the startup and with the CEO themselves.
当推动力在董事会内或者在尽职调查过程中出现时，就会必然产生冲突。我认为冲突是做出良好决策的必要因素。这种冲突不仅在投资团队内部产生，还必须从创业公司的高管和首席执行官那里引发。

Because when you're prosecuting a good decision, it's unbelievable that you agree on 100% of things. And there has to be certain things that are controversial. Otherwise, by definition, that company isn't really even pushing the boundary. So I just think that these are all skills that are poorly taught while you are building a business. It is not the reason why you should have been in charge of allocating 50 and $100 million checks into companies. That is just crazy town.
因为当你在推动一个好的决策时，很难相信你在所有事情上都达成了100%的一致。必然会有争议的事情存在。否则，按定义来说，那个公司根本没有在突破界限。所以我认为这些都是在你建立一个业务时学得不好的技能。这不是你应该负责分配五千万和一亿美元资金给公司的原因。那简直就是疯狂的。

I love your point, Saks, though, about fun size dynamics. Fun size dynamics are destiny. It really is. And the optimal fun size for venture is somewhere between 250 and 600 million, according to everybody who's been doing this for more than a decade or two and who's successful, whether it's- When the costs are coming down, so as the input costs come down, whether it's for engineers and co-pilots and hardware and abstraction layers, then theoretically, greater outcomes should be generated with fewer dollars in, which would, again, tell you that fun sizes should actually go down, not up, that the reason they go up is because you get paid an annual management fee.
我喜欢你的观点，Saks，关于有趣的规模动态。有趣的规模动态是命运。确实如此。根据那些在这个领域有十年甚至更久经验并且成功的人们，风险投资的最佳有趣规模在2.5亿到6亿之间。当成本降低时，无论是对于工程师、副驾驶员、硬件和抽象层等的成本降低，理论上来说，以更少的资金能够产生更大的成果，这意味着有趣的规模实际上应该下降，而不是上升，它们上升的原因是因为你可以获得年度管理费。

And so obviously, the way to make more money is to get 2% on a larger fixed number every year versus 2% on a smaller number. Or for example, what we did was we were like, we're going to go and hit grand slams. And so I traded off management fee in return for 30% carry. And that turned out to be literally a multi-billion dollar smart decision because I gave up tens of millions of dollars up front for back end. Now the back end could have gone to zero and maybe it still can. So who knows? But most folks wouldn't do that.
显然，要赚更多的钱就是每年在一个更大的固定数额上获得2%的利润，而不是在一个较小的数额上获得2%的利润。举个例子，我们当时的做法是，我们打算去追求大的成功。所以，我为了得到30%的分成，放弃了管理费。结果，这个决定成了一个数十亿美元的明智选择，因为我前面放弃了数百万美元，但后期的回报可能会一文不值，现在或将如此。所以，谁知道呢？但是大多数人不会这样做。

Most folks take the sort of risk adjusted bet and say, you know what, I'll just take the 2% and I'll raise a 200 million, then a 500 million, then a billion, then a 2 billion overlap. Yeah, and they stack them all and they get the 2% and all of a sudden the profits don't matter, which means the outcomes don't matter, which means the diligence is perfunctory and it becomes a theatrical expose that you can use this sort of thin fig leaf, you can point to LPs and say, we did our work here, give us more money for this next fund. That's the rat race that the venture community is in. And it's going to get played out in companies like IRL and Byjus and a lot of these AI companies, quite honestly. Right. And the chickens have come home to risk for all the crap down investment. This time is not different.
大多数人采取了风险调整后的赌注方式，他们会说，知道了，我只要拿2%的收益，然后筹集2亿，再筹集5亿，再筹集10亿，然后筹集20亿的重合。是的，他们把它们全部叠加起来，然后就有了2%的收益，突然间利润就不重要了，这意味着结果不重要，尽责审慎和真实性都不重要了，它变成了一个戏剧性的揭示，你可以使用这种薄薄的借口，向有限合伙人表示，我们在这里进行了努力工作，请给我们下一笔基金更多的资金。这就是风险投资圈陷入的竞争。而且这种情况将在IRL和Byjus等很多人工智能公司中得到体现，坦率地说。是的。所有这些投资都存在风险，而这一次并没有什么不同。

Yeah. I think what I'm trying to say, this time is not different. Did you guys see there was some article that reported that fundraising for late stage funds is just like Crater. Dead. So insight was trying to raise a 10 billion dollar fund and they've only been able to raise two. Wait, hold on. A cornless article. No, no, no, it was 22 down to 10 and of which they've raised two. Okay. So 10% and then Tiger was trying to raise 12, they cut it to six and then they can only raise two. Makes sense.
是的，我想说的是，这次情况并没有不同。你们看到那篇报道了吗？关于后期基金筹款完全崩溃的文章。完全没戏了。Insight想要筹集100亿美元的基金，他们只能筹到两个亿。等等，我记错了。那篇文章是说他们原本想筹到22亿，降到了10亿，然后只能筹到两个亿。好吧，也就是10%。然后Tiger原本想要筹到12亿，降到了6亿，最终只筹到两个亿。有道理。

Yeah. So basically that's like a whatever 80 to 90% reduction in the size of these funds. Yeah. I mean, we're all the sovereigns where they were going for this money or buying sports teams. They're like, you know what? Instead of tech, let's just buy sports teams and they're buying series A and they're buying Manchester United and they're buying distressed portfolios. Yeah. And the sovereigns. But there's a huge crunch. There's a huge, we've talked about before, but there's a huge crunch in late stage financing. It's only going to get worse over the next 18 months.
是的。基本上来说，这些基金的规模减少了80%到90%。是的。我的意思是，我们所有的主权国家原本打算用这笔钱来购买体育队，但他们突然改变主意，决定购买科技公司。他们正在购买A轮融资，购买曼联，购买贫困组合。是的，主权国家。但是，晚期融资有很大的资金紧缩。在接下来的18个月内，情况只会变得更糟。

I asked Brian last week, like how many of these zombie corn do you think there are out of the 1400? He said 30 to 40%. I think he might be, you know, it could be look out of 1400. I think it could be 700 or zombie corn. I think it's at least 700. I think it's probably 60%. Yeah. And then the other 40%, let's say, how many of them have a down round coming? I think 60% go to zero of the remaining 40%, half of them probably return money. And then out the remaining half, half of those maybe get one and a half X. And then you get a geometric distribution from there, which means the blended return of that entire stream of unicorns will be about 1.1 X, but it'll be very massively distributed.
我上周问了Brian，像这1400个中有多少个是僵尸玉米？他说大概是30%到40%。我觉得他可能说得对，可能有大约700个僵尸玉米。至少有700个。我觉得大约有60%。对，还有剩下的40%，我们假设其中多少会遭遇下轮融资困难？我觉得60%会变成零，剩下的40%中，其中一半可能会回本。然后在剩下的一半中，其中一半可能会有1.5倍的收益。然后你会得到一个几何分布，这意味着整个独角兽群体的平均收益约为1.1倍，但分布将非常广泛。

I think that is exactly right. Yeah. Everybody's getting their money back, except if you don't have diversification. Yeah. It's the, I think the market is sending a very clear message, which is these are you said, everybody's getting no, no, no, most people won't get their money. But on average, it's going to be one extra turn. Yeah. It's not going to be evenly distributed. Correct. Well, I'm glad that the term zombie corn has held.
我认为这完全正确。是的，每个人都会拿回自己的钱，除非你没有分散投资。是的，我认为市场正在传递一个非常明确的信息，就像你说的，每个人都会拿回————不，不，不，大多数人不会拿回他们的钱。但平均而言，会多一倍。是的，这不会均匀分布。正确。嗯，我很高兴“僵尸玉米”这个词还保持着。

Guys, we are coming up on our time. Do you guys want to do a science corner or do you want to? Yeah. The three of us need to use the bathroom breaks. So go ahead and just if you can just go do it, we're going to go and take a leak and we'll come back and make a irradiance joke.
伙计们，我们的时间到了。你们想要做一个科学角落还是别的什么？是的，我们三个都需要上个洗手间。所以去吧，如果可以的话，请先去办一下，我们会去上个厕所然后回来开个辐射笑话。

You know, I'm okay. I'm going to wrap. So look, it's been great. It's been great being your host. It's been crashed himself. Give us a science corner. Give us a, you don't hug me. You don't embrace me. You don't, you don't love my contribution. You're great.
你知道的，我没事。我要结束了。所以看，一切都很棒。作为你的主持人太棒了。他真的很受欢迎。给我们一个科学角落。给我们一个，你不拥抱我。你不接纳我。你不爱我的贡献。你很棒。

I actually, I posted a clip of RFK talking about vaccines. I'd love for you to listen to it and actually give us the critique. Yes. I will. Can we do it next? That's going viral right now. He did such a good job explaining his position on that. He did such a good job.
实际上，我发了一段RFK谈论疫苗的视频片段。我希望你能听一下，然后给我们提供批评。是的，我会的。我们可以下次做吗？那个视频正在迅速走红。他非常好地解释了自己对此的立场。他做得非常出色。

Yeah. Look, do you guys read the off at peace? I forwarded to you and I said, please read this. If you guys read that piece, I'll watch his clip and let's talk about it next week. Is that cool? So office is it?
是的。听着，你们有没有读那篇和平文件？我转发给你们并说，请阅读这个。如果你们读了那篇文章，我会看他的视频片段，然后我们下周一起讨论一下。可以吗？那样行吗？办公室怎么样？

Yeah. He is a vaccine scientist who RFK junior references often as someone that he met with and spoke with and says I caught him in a lie and often basically said, here's exactly what happened. Here's the conversation. Here's the data. Here's the facts. Here's the science. And I would really, really, really encourage you guys to read that, please. And then I'll watch his clip and let's have a real analytical conversation about statements that are good questions to ask and good things to interrogate and things that are being said that maybe aren't factually correct. I think that we need to kind of really, as a service to ourselves and to people that listen to us, really do that work. So let's do that and come back and talk about it next week if that's cool. But I encourage everyone to read off it. He put it on sub stack. Nick, we'll put the link in the notes here. Let's definitely work great.
是的。他是一位疫苗科学家，RFK junior经常提到他，说自己与他见过面、交谈过，并称他撒了谎，他常常基本上说，“这就是所发生的事情。这就是对话的内容。这就是数据。这就是事实。这就是科学。”我真的非常、非常、非常鼓励大家阅读一下，请。然后我会看他的片段，我们可以就一些好问题和好事物进行真正的分析性讨论，并对可能不准确的陈述进行质疑。我认为我们需要真正为自己和听众服务，做这样的工作。所以，如果可以的话，我们来做这个，下周再来讨论一下。但我鼓励大家都读一下。他把它放在sub stack上了。尼克，我们会在这里的注释中提供链接。让我们一起努力吧。

I'll continue. Yeah, I'll continue. I'll continue exactly. I think that's the most important. You want to talk about that certain senator that all of a sudden just basically gave us the Heisman? No, we've had a lot of those, by the way. So let me just be clear. That's not the only Heisman we've received on the All-in Summit. I will say that the speaker list for the All-in Summit is looking fantastic. We're going to have a great time and I'm really excited for the conversation. What you're saying, some folks, Heisman does because of our support of RFK. That did happen. And specifically the fact that you opened mind it. Yeah. And then there were other folks who were insulted by things that were said about them by people on the show. So soft.
我会继续下去。是的，我会继续。我会坚持下去。我认为这是最重要的。你想谈谈那个突然间拒绝我们的某位参议员吗？不，我们遇到了很多这样的人，顺便说一句。所以让我明确一点。那并不是我们在All-in Summit上收到的唯一的拒绝。我会说All-in Summit的发言人名单看起来非常出色。我们将度过美好的时光，我为这次对话感到非常兴奋。你所说的，有些人对我们因支持RFK而受到阻止的人持拒绝态度。确实发生了这样的事。而且特别是你持开放态度时，还有其他人对节目中有关他们的言论感到被侮辱。真是太软弱了。

Do you guys want to hear about the nanograv release that came out yesterday? Yes. I'll cover this one real quick. Wait, what about this slow hummer that we're all getting? What is that? That's it. It's a slow hummer, exactly. Okay, good. Are you talking about the new H3 EV, but it only goes up to 50 miles per hour? What is that? The new Hummer, the new HV. You know the- They have an EV. They're coming out with an EV of that paper. Oh, you're kidding. It's hilarious. Yeah. It's like a great troll. I remember when Schwarzenegger got the Hummer back in the 90s and I was like, oh my God, he's amazing. I can drive by the Yauka. And then the Hummer was the cool car to drive. You've got to meet a Koopa. Yeah, I'm going to pretend like that. Free by the same as Mini Koopa is in that of Melika.
你们想听一下昨天发布的“纳米重力波”吗？是的，我会简要介绍一下。等等，那我们现在都在遭受的这种慢速振动是什么？那就是了，就是一种缓慢的振动，没错。好的，你是在说新的H3 EV，但最高时速只有50英里吗？那是什么？是新的悍马，新的HV车型。你知道的，他们有一款电动车型。他们即将推出纸上的电动车款。哦，你开玩笑吧。太搞笑了。是的。就像一个伟大的恶作剧。我记得90年代施瓦辛格买了一辆悍马，当时我就觉得，哇塞，他太厉害了，我也能在洛杉矶开着悍马溜达了。然后悍马就成为了时髦的座驾。你得遇到一个库巴（柯巴车模）才行。是的，我要假装就那样。带上迷你库巴一样，那可是梅莉卡（名字）的。

Okay. So yesterday a paper was published by an international scientific consortium. This group is called Nanograv and they've been using a series of instruments to measure pulsars, including a 500 meter radio telescope array, which allows them to see what's so funny. No, I just- I'm like three or eighties chunks. What sentence would I have to stop myself? Get them out now. Go ahead. I'm beauty. I'm beauty.
好的。所以昨天一个国际科学联盟发布了一篇论文。这个团体叫做Nanograv，他们一直在使用一系列的仪器来测量脉冲星，包括一个500米的射电望远镜阵列，这使得他们能够看到什么是如此有趣的东西。不，我只是-我好像有些混乱了。哪句话能让我停下来？现在把它们说出来。请继续。我很美丽。我很美丽。

We've got to be honest, we've got to be honest. This is 15 years of data from pulsars. And pulsars are neutron stars, which are stars that have collapsed on themselves and are basically super dense and start spinning and then these pulsars, you know, you basically like a lighthouse, you can see the light. So it looks like a- almost like a strobe light.
我们必须诚实，我们必须真实。这是来自脉冲星的15年数据。脉冲星是中子星，是那些已经坍缩在自身并且非常致密的恒星，它们开始旋转，然后这些脉冲星就像灯塔一样，你可以看到光。所以它看起来像是一种几乎像是频闪灯一样的东西。

And we can see thousands of these across the universe and we can observe them. And the rate at which the pulsing is coming out of these pulsars tells us a lot about what is happening in the space between Earth and those pulsars. And when you collect enough data over a long enough period of time, which is what these folks have just released as 15 years worth of this data, you can start to see really interesting patterns in the data that support the theory that space time itself is slowly vibrating, being stretched, being compressed, being pulled apart, being pushed back together, has a very large gravitational events happening around the universe.
我们可以在宇宙中看到成千上万个这样的脉冲星，并且我们可以观察它们。这些脉冲星脉冲发出的速率告诉我们很多关于地球和这些脉冲星之间的空间中发生的事情。当你在足够长的时间内收集到足够多的数据时，就像这些人刚刚发布的15年的数据，你就可以开始看到数据中支持空间时间本身缓慢振动、被拉伸、被压缩、被拉开、被推在一起的有趣模式，这些都是宇宙中大规模的引力事件。

And what that means is you guys have all seen, you know, that kind of two dimensional image of a black hole. And Nick, if you could find one online and pull it up where it looks like, hey, at the middle of a black hole, space itself collapses in and it collapses down. And what happens is space and time gets significantly elongated when they're really close to gravity. Gravity actually pulls space, sucks it in, sucks in time, and it becomes distorted. And so when you have large black holes around the universe spinning and running past each other, they're actually pulling and stretching space time itself. And that sends out ripples throughout the universe, ripples that are slowly undulating space and time itself.
这意味着大家都见过那种二维图像的黑洞。如果尼克你能在网上找到一个，并将其打开，那就可以看到黑洞中央似乎是空间本身塌陷、向内坍缩。当物体靠近重力时，空间和时间将极大地延展。重力实际上将空间吸引并拉扯其中，吸收时间，使其变形。因此，当宇宙中的大型黑洞旋转并相互经过时，它们实际上在牵引和拉伸时空本身。这会在整个宇宙中产生涟漪，缓慢地起伏着时空本身。

So by observing all of these pulsars around the universe and the rate at which these pulsars are pulsing and seeing slight variations, we can start to measure and actually see those waves, those very slow waves of space time itself undulating and being pushed and compressed. And so it supports Einstein's general theory of relativity, which indicated that space time itself can be warped by gravity. And it provides a really interesting picture on the universe itself that all around us, we have large masses that are many, many millions or billions of light years away that are creating waves in space and time itself that we as humans will never kind of observe, realize or feel ourselves. But as part of the fabric and the underlying nature of our universe, with space and time being slowly warped and slowly elongated, slowly compressed, and it's a really fascinating picture of the universe.
通过观察宇宙中所有的脉冲星以及脉冲的速率，并注意到微小的变化，我们可以开始测量和实际看到那些波动，那些非常缓慢的时空波动和被推动和压缩的现象。这支持爱因斯坦的广义相对论，该理论表明时空本身可以被重力扭曲。这提供了一个非常有趣的宇宙图景，我们身边到处都是距离我们有着数百万甚至数十亿光年的大量质量，在时空中创造出波动，我们作为人类永远无法观察、认识或感受到。但作为宇宙的基础性本质和构成部分，时空被缓慢地扭曲、延展、压缩，这是一个非常迷人的宇宙图景。

Over time, a scientists gather more and more of this data. It will provide insights into where in the universe these massive black hole events may be occurring and also provide insights into the early picture in the large scale structure of the universe, which helps us better understand how everything started and where we're all coming from. So it was a really fascinating data release. I think it's a really kind of profound thing. If you take a little time and think about it, it's super exciting. It's getting a lot of press coverage today and encourages us all to pull our heads out of the Ukraine war and Silicon Valley and money and all this stuff and realize that there are things of extraordinary scale and structure that are happening around us.
随着时间的推移，科学家们收集了越来越多的这些数据。这将揭示宇宙中这些巨大黑洞事件可能发生的位置，同时也会为我们提供宇宙大尺度结构的早期画面的见解，这有助于我们更好地理解一切的起源和我们的归宿。因此，这是一次非常迷人的数据发布。我认为这是一件相当深刻的事情。如果你花点时间去思考一下，这是非常令人兴奋的。它正在受到很多媒体的关注，促使我们将注意力从乌克兰战争、硅谷、金钱等方面转移到我们周围正在发生的非凡规模和结构的事物上。

Let me ask you two questions. Number one, why does it matter? And number two, any theories here of what we might discover if this goes 10x or 100x in terms of the information we're getting?
让我问你两个问题。第一个问题是，为什么这重要呢？第二个问题是，如果我们获取的信息增加了10倍或100倍，那么我们可能会发现什么样的理论呢？

Many years ago, it was theorized that there was what's called a cosmic microwave background radiation, the CMB. And what that is, it's the leftover heat from the formation of the universe, from the universe when the Big Bang happened. And the scientists figured out how to create really sensitive radio telescopes and put them in orbit and they started to observe the background radiation.
很多年前，有理论认为存在一种被称为宇宙微波背景辐射（CMB）的现象。它是宇宙大爆炸发生时形成的宇宙剩余热量。科学家们研究出了如何制造非常敏感的射电望远镜并将它们置于轨道上，从而开始观测背景辐射。

And what that showed us was the fingerprint of the universe, the original structure of the universe that created ultimately all the galaxies, super galaxies, and then ultimately all the stars and then the planets and everything that came from that.
这说明给我们看到的是宇宙的指纹，宇宙最初的结构，最终创造了所有的星系、超星系，然后又创造了所有的恒星、行星以及一切与此相关的事物。

This could be the beginning of seeing a gravitational background of the universe. Where we could actually start to see perhaps the fingerprint of the space time of the whole universe, of what the actual structure of space itself and time itself looks like throughout the universe with the perturbations being driven by some very large massive, super massive black holes.
这可能是找到宇宙引力背景的开端，我们实际上可以开始观测到宇宙中整体时空的指纹，以及空间本身和时间本身在整个宇宙中的真实结构，这些结构可能受到一些极大质量、超大质量黑洞驱动的扰动影响。

There was a black hole discovered this week that's 30 billion times the mass of our sun. There are these massive objects out there that are actively distorting space time and we're going to start to get a fingerprint of that with this sort of data.
本周有一颗黑洞被发现，其质量是我们太阳的300亿倍。宇宙中存在着这些庞大的物体，它们在积极地扭曲时空，而我们将从这种数据中开始获得这一现象的一些特征。

And over time, that just gives us a better sense of what the overall structure of the universe looks like, not just from the heat energy that we're collecting, but also the gravitational waves that we're now able to observe through the inference of this data collection.
随着时间的推移，这让我们对宇宙的整体结构有了更清晰的认识，不仅仅是通过我们收集的热能数据，还包括我们现在能够通过数据收集的推理观测到的引力波。

This just deepens our understanding of the universe, but there's not like the universe. Yeah, which is amazing and interesting, but and it validates and proves the general theory of relativity, which if you think about the application of that down the road, that may lead to things like close to or as fast as light travel or things related to time travel. Or, you know, there's a lot of things that people have theorized for decades about, you know, black holes and the warping of space time itself.
这只是加深了我们对宇宙的理解，但宇宙并不像我们所想的那样。宇宙是如此令人惊奇和有趣，而且它验证和证实了广义相对论。如果我们考虑到这个理论的应用，可能会导致接近或者超越光速的旅行，以及与时间旅行相关的事物。或者说，关于黑洞和时空扭曲等方面，人们已经有了数十年的理论推测。

I'm not saying that any of this stuff is.
我的意思并不是说这些东西中的任何一个是。

Did you see the three body problem trailer? Oh, yeah, it looks amazing. It looks amazing. It looks amazing.
你看了《三体》的预告片吗？哦，是的，看起来太棒了。太棒了。太棒了。

What a great, what a great. Can't believe we have to wait so long. I hate it when they put out trailers. So how long when is it coming out? Like next year. Oh, wow. Yeah.
太棒了，太棒了。真不敢相信我们还得等这么久。我讨厌他们发布预告片。那么，要等多久才会上映呢？明年吗？哇，真的吗？是的。

Oh, I still haven't seen your movie. The guys your movie that you wanted me to see, which movie to try. Oh, everything everywhere all at once.
哦，我还没看过你的电影。你想让我看的那部电影是哪一部呢？哦，好像到处都有，无处不在。

I got a better movie for you. I got a great poll for you. It's on pay per view right now. The movie about blackberry. It tells the story of blackberry. Oh, I heard it's good. Independent film. It is awesome. I just reviewed it on this week and startups. It's called just on his blackberry. Called blackberry. Yeah.
我给你找到了一部更好的电影。我有一个很棒的调查给你。现在正在付费电视上播放。这部电影讲述了黑莓手机的故事。哦，我听说挺好的。是一部独立电影。真的很棒。我刚刚在本周和创业公司上做了评价。它叫做“只在他的黑莓上”。就是黑莓这个名字。是的。

Well, guys, this has been episode 135 of the All In Pod. I really appreciate our live time together. It's just enough time to get you back to your Nirvana concert. Yo. What's the background on this one? Is that arrival? What is that? What's that background? What movie? That's a black hole. That's a black hole. Just a black hole. Okay. Not from.
嗨，伙计们，这是《全程参与播客》的第135集。我非常感谢我们一起度过的时光。这正好是足够的时间，让你们准时赶回尼尔瓦纳音乐会。嘿，这个背景是什么来头？是太空飞船登陆吗？那是什么？那个背景是什么电影？那是一个黑洞。就是个黑洞。好的，不是来自哪里的。

I think that that's from. Might be a bit. What's going on with Sax's hair? Because he looks like did you get it? Cut Sax? He got a cut. Did you cut it? No, you broke our heart sax. I got a mild sluffing. Show us the fluff. Let's go. Let's see. Oh, boo. I mean, it's still crazy. It's too short or what? You gotta just keep grounded out, man. J.K. You want to take us out? You do a better outro.
我认为那是来自...可能有一点点。撒克斯的头发怎么了？因为他看起来像是...你明白了吗？剪掉了吗？他剪了。你剪的吗？不，你伤了我们的心，撒克斯。我剪得不多。给我们看看剪短的部分。出发吧。让我们看看。哦，噢。我是说它还是很疯狂。太短了还是怎样？你只需要保持扎根，伙计。开个玩笑。你想送我们出去吗？你可以做个更好的结尾。

All right, everybody. For David, Sax, we are attacked. Coming at you. Z100 board exude. Chabalth Polyapatea 2 for Tuesdays. Cheers for Fierce coming up and Freeburg with the Science Project. All right, traveling back in time with David Freeburg 2 for Tuesday. Jackson Brown. Lowdown. Here we go. That's how you worry. That's how you worry.
好的，各位。对于David和Sax，我们正在受到攻击。迎面而来。Z100牌铭牌。周二的Chabalth Polyapatea 2次。欢呼Fierce，即将开始，并由Science Project的Freeburg带来。好的，与David Freeburg一起穿越时间，两个礼拜的周二。Jackson Brown。Lowdown。我们开始吧。这就是你的担心。这就是你的担心。

It's great as moderator. I'm the world's greatest moderator. I can do my NPR voice if you like.
作为主持人，这感觉真棒。我是世界上最好的主持人。如果你喜欢的话，我可以用公共广播电台的声音表演。

All right, closing us out here. Episode 135. PCRW 92.3. The sound of Santa Monica this Sunday at the Venice Farmers Market 2 for 1 on the organic mill. Go check it out. And we'll see you all later on the politics of culture. David Sax chiming in on the Republican GOP position, which we did consider. Freeburg deeply going into science and Chabalth Polyapatea on wealth disparity. Everybody, I am your host here at KCRW. Jason Calakan is the world's most moderate. We'll see you next time, KCRW. I can do any of these video bits. Bye bye.
好的，在这里跟大家结束。第135集。PCRW 92.3。这个周日在威尼斯农民市场上的圣莫尼卡声音，有机磨粉2买1。去看看吧。我们以后再见，在政治文化方面见证你们所有人。大卫·萨克斯谈到了共和党的立场，我们也进行了考虑。费堡深入探讨科学，查巴尔特·波利阿帕提谈到了财富差距。大家好，我是KCRW的主持人。杰森·卡拉肯是世界上最中立的人。下次见，KCRW。我可以做任何这些视频片段。再见。

Love you guys. We'll let your winners ride. Brainman David Sax. And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you guys. I'm the queen of Kinwah. Besties are all covered. That's my dog taking a wish. You're driveway. Oh man. My eyes are really weak. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just like this like sexual tension that we just need to release it out. What? You're a thief. What? We need to get merges. I'm going all lit. I'm going all lit. I'm going all lit.
爱你们。我们会让你们的赢家继续前进。Brainman大卫·萨克斯。我们将其开源给粉丝，他们对此疯狂热衷。爱你们。我是金华的女王。我们的好朋友都包揽了。那是我的狗在许愿。你的车道。哦，天哪。我的眼睛真的很虚弱。我们应该一起找个房间，举行一个巨大的聚会，因为我们都有这种性的紧张感，我们需要释放出来。什么？你是个小偷。什么？我们需要合并。我会全力以赴。我会全力以赴。我会全力以赴。