首页  >>  来自播客: All-In Podcast 更新   反馈

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

发布时间 2023-10-20 07:52:52    来源

摘要

(0:00) Bestie intros (0:49) State of Israel/Gaza: Information wars, delayed ground war, domestic political pressures (23:20) ...

GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......

中英文字稿  

What are you talking about three very different actors there might david david behind you is your security cameras are on you want to turn those off yeah. I want to second. You said there watch those all day security apparatus what is this guy the batman. It's not all day and watch it. Did you see that behind him it was so dystopian oh my gosh you must have caught some crazy shit on those security cameras sats what do you do with that footage. I want your winner right.
你在谈论什么呢? 那三个不同的演员，可能有大卫·大卫在你身后，你的安全摄像头都打开了，你想关掉它们吗？是的，我想。你刚才说了有人一直在看那些安保设施，这家伙像蝙蝠侠一样？不是一直在看，也不是我在看。你有没有看到他身后的东西？太反乌托邦了，天哪，你一定拍到了一些疯狂的东西。那些安保摄像头的录像你怎么处理？我想要你的赢家录像。

Rain man david.
雨男大卫。

Okay everybody welcome to episode one hundred and fifty of the all in podcast yes we've made it to a hundred fifty episodes somehow talking about technology. Business and of course politics and this week we will continue our discussion. Tragically about the situation is real and the war with the moss and a lot of the downstream. Effects of what's going on here and try to make sense of the world as we do we gave a disclaimer last week we're not experts and I suspect many of you are not experts on this but we're going to try to talk about the heart. Topic here and do it in good faith and then we will move on to topics that don't have to do with the war in Gaza that could by the time you read this again another disclaimer by the time you listen to this podcast. Ground invasion may remain out of started we take these on Thursdays and you listen to generally speaking on Saturdays and Sundays. With me again this week from off polyhopete David sacks and of course David Friedberg and gentlemen just going around the horn here quick before the first topic. How's everybody feeling about the events and the 10 days since 10 7 in the terrorist attack that occurred in Israel I skipped last week. I was too emotional to do the show just the folks now. It was. Difficult. To see what I saw on the Internet and the reporting. I think I was really moved. Because I thought a lot about the like. How lucky we are and the my I thought about my children. And seeing what I saw and being a parent. It's really different. I remember 9 11 it was really shocking I was really upset from 9 11 as well but when I saw the events last week. It immediately projected on to my kids and the. Care I try and take from my kids and thinking about. The experience of other people in this situation I was also I'll be honest really moved and saddened. Because of. The bombing of children in Gaza and I was really saddened that there are innocent children suffering there as well. And the whole thing just felt so horrific to me I don't think about the justification. Or the morality of one side over another I was just more moved because I felt really sad about the experience of a lot of. Families and a lot of children caught in the middle of caught in this in this environment so I was I was pretty hurt last week I was in a really. Bad state and I couldn't do the show. I think. You know time has allowed me to kind of become a bit rational about things and try and understand where things are headed and it's a really complicated confusing situation and it's really sad. I worry a lot about where things are headed. Not just in the Middle East but also domestically coming out of this conflict. So that's where I'm at. Yeah, thank you for sharing. I wasn't sure if you would share your absence last week and I think it's fair I too. Have been thinking about my own children and it's and 9 11 and it's it's very dark and so it's hard to talk about. But we're making progress here I think and today we'll talk about a lot of the issues. Chamois or Sax any. Opening thoughts before we get started delving into what's actually happening and then more importantly I think. Where this is heading and what the possible outcome or resolution could be if there is a resolution here.
大家好，欢迎收听第150期的《全力以赴》播客。是的，我们已经发布了150期节目了，这些节目讨论了科技、商业以及政治等各种话题。本周，我们将继续讨论关于中东和摩萨德之间真实情况以及战争带来的一系列后果的话题，并试图对当前世界局势做出合理解释。我们在上周进行了免责声明，我们并非专家，我猜很多人也不是对这个话题很了解，但我们将尽力诚实地进行讨论。然后，我们将转向与加沙战争无关的话题，当你们再次听到这个播客时，也请再次免责声明，根据通常时间表，我们会在星期六和星期天进行录制，而你们会在每周六和周日收听。这周我再次邀请了我的朋友David Sacks和David Friedberg参与节目，现在我们先来快速谈一下首要话题之前的情况。大家对过去10天、也就是从10月7日以色列恐怖袭击事件发生以来的事件感觉如何？我在上周的节目中没有参加，因为我对此情绪太激动了。在互联网上看到的报道让我感到很难过。我被这些报道震惊了，因为我想了很多。我们真幸运，而我又想到了我的孩子。当我看到上周的事件时，立刻就想到了我的孩子以及为他们提供保护的责任，我是一个家长，所以这种感受完全不一样。我还记得9/11，我因为那个事件非常震惊和难过，但是上周看到的事件让我一下子就和我的孩子联想到了一起。我也为加沙的儿童受到轰炸感到非常难过，也为那里还有无辜的儿童在受苦而感到悲伤。整个事情对我来说都太可怕了，我不去想哪一方的理由或道德高地，我只是因为很难过，很伤心，为处于冲突之中的很多家庭和儿童的经历感到悲痛。上周我非常伤心，情绪非常低落，所以没法参加节目。我想说，经过一段时间的沉思，我已经开始有点理性地思考问题了，尽力去理解事情的发展方向，这是一个非常复杂和混乱的情况，真的很令人伤心。我很担心事情的发展方向，不仅仅是在中东，还有来自这次冲突的国内问题。这就是我的感受。嗯，谢谢你分享。我不确定你是否会提及你上周缺席节目的原因，但我认为这是公平的。我也一直在思考我自己的孩子，还有9/11事件，这是非常黑暗的，所以很难谈论。但我们在这里正在取得进展，我认为今天我们将讨论很多问题。Shamoi和Sax，在我们开始深入讨论正在发生的事情以及更重要的是，这将走向何方以及可能的结果或解决方案时，你们有什么开场的想法吗？

I think things are getting better actually. I think okay from where. If you had to graph your expectations of how bad things could get I think what most people would probably say is somewhere last week. There was a scepter of some potential World War three like contagion. And I think in general. It hasn't stopped some of the bloodshed but the extent to which. We expected this thing to escalate it actually hasn't happened. And so if you take a step back and you kind of calmly and coldly look at the facts. I think that there are a lot of people on all sides trying to. Maintain their composure in a moment where there's a lot of. Brush fires. So. I actually think that this is been. Much much better than it could have been and so I'm generally optimistic that we're going to find our way out of this so sex any. Thoughts.
我认为事情实际上正在变得更好。我认为从哪一方面来看都还好。如果你不得不画出事情可能变得多糟糕的预期曲线，我认为大多数人可能会说在上周某个时间点。有一种潜在的第三次世界大战的影响。而且我认为总的来说，虽然还有一些流血事件，但事情升级的程度实际上并没有发生。所以如果你退后一步，冷静地看待事实。我认为目前各方都有很多人试图保持冷静，在这个存在许多脆弱因素的时刻。所以，我实际上认为这比本可以更糟糕，所以我对我们能够摆脱这个局势持乐观态度。有什么想法吗？

As well to be honest I can't be as optimistic as tomorrow. It's true that World War three hasn't started yet but I think the situation is incredibly volatile still. Just the last couple of days the headline story was an explosion or bombing of this hospital in Gaza. Blame immediately fell on Israel and the claim in the New York Times was that they had dropped a bob on it from a plane. Social media was. A flame with that.
说实话，我对明天的情况并不像其他人那样乐观。虽然第三次世界大战还没有爆发，但我认为目前的局势非常不稳定。就在前几天，媒体的头条新闻是加沙地区一家医院发生爆炸或被轰炸的事件。责备立刻落在以色列身上，纽约时报声称他们从飞机上投下了一枚炸弹。社交媒体上立刻热议纷纷。

I think in the last day or so the perspective seems to be changing. There's video now showing that it wasn't the hospital but rather the parking lot next to the hospital. That took the brunt of the damage. I think that it's far from clear that Israel did it. A lot of people are blaming. Islamic Jihad. In any event it's very unclear. So I'm going to continue to do what I've done which is suspend judgment until there can be some sort of proper investigation of what happened and we find out exactly who's really responsible but it does seem that over the last day or so there's been now a backing off of the idea that Israel was definitely responsible for this.
我认为在过去的一天左右，观点似乎正在发生改变。现在有视频显示并不是医院受到了损害，而是医院旁边的停车场。停车场承受了大部分的破坏。我认为，远远不能确定是以色列做的。很多人指责伊斯兰圣战组织。无论如何，这一点非常不清楚。所以我将继续做我一直在做的事情，暂不做判断，直到对发生的事情进行适当的调查，并确切地找出真正的责任人。但似乎在过去一天左右，对以色列明确负责的想法正在减弱。

Nonetheless you saw immediately in the wake of that story coming out that there were protests and riots all over the Middle East. The Arab Street was absolutely ignited and I think that the Arab Street is not going to be convinced that Israel wasn't responsible for this. I just think that they're convinced and I think partisans on both sides are convinced about who did it and they're going to be immune to whatever evidence comes out. So I think that's kind of the situation we're at right now.
尽管如此，你很快就看到在那个故事曝光后，整个中东地区爆发了抗议和骚乱。阿拉伯街头完全燃起，我认为阿拉伯街头不会相信以色列不是这次事件的责任方。我只是认为他们已经被说服了，而且我认为双方的党派都坚信是谁干的，不管出现什么证据，他们都会对之免疫。所以我认为现在我们所处的就是这种局面。

I would consider the riots that we just saw in regards to the hospital and the eruption on social media to be a prelude or dress rehearsal of what we can expect to happen almost every day if Israel proceeds with the ground invasion of Gaza. Now they haven't done that yet and that's why the situation seems tenuous but stable but we're still waiting to find out if Israel's going to go into Gaza and if they do I think all bets are off in terms of where this is going.
如果以色列继续对加沙地带进行地面入侵，我认为我们刚刚目睹的关于医院的骚乱以及社交媒体上的喷发，可以看作是我们几乎每天都可以预期到发生的事情的前奏或彩排。现在他们还没有这样做，这就是为什么情况看起来不稳定但又比较稳定，但我们仍在等待以色列是否会进入加沙地带，如果他们这样做，我认为关于这将发展成怎样的局面就很难说了。

This was my biggest concern last week. I think the thing I was most anxious about was that the imagery that would come out of Gaza with the action from Israel would be the fodder for escalation worldwide. That there's this perception already with half a billion people, maybe two billion people, maybe more, that there's an oppressor and there's an oppressed and the oppressed is suffering under the oppressor and that there would be the creation of fodder to support that narrative.
这是我上周最担心的事情。我认为我最焦虑的是，以色列对加沙采取行动时，会产生支持全球升级的形象。已经有大约五亿人，甚至可能达到二十亿人或更多人，认为有一个压迫者和被压迫者的对立，被压迫者在压迫者统治下受苦，而这将产生支持这种叙事的素材。

And I think that the hospital bombing, the kind of point I made to someone who reached out to me two days ago or yesterday about it was I don't know if it matters that we get the corrections from all these people that may have said something that turns out to not be true because it was almost like that media became confirmation bias for people that already felt that this is what was going on and this is simply evidence of what is going on and it justifies the next step. It justifies the beliefs, it justifies the morality. And I don't think that if it wasn't this it's going to be something else.
我认为，关于医院遭轰炸这件事，我对两天前或昨天有人向我提出的观点是：我不知道从那些可能说了一些事后证明是不真实的人那里得到纠正是否有意义，因为媒体几乎成为已经认为这就是发生的事情，并且这只是证据的人们的证实，并正当化了下一步行动，正当化了他们的信仰，正当化了他们的道德观。我认为，如果不是这个问题，就会是其他问题。

There is a tinderbox ready to be lit and that tinderbox is just looking for a match and whether it's this match or the next match there's going to be a match. And the tinderbox will be lit. I think that a large number of people feel like they're on the right side. If everyone thinks they're on the right side of something, everyone feels like they have the right moral stance that there is a regime on the other side that has the wrong moral stance. I am good, you are evil. And therefore anything I see is my confirmation bias for my belief and it gives me permission to take the next step. And in that framework, it will only escalate. And we are only going to a dark place.
有一个火柴盒已经摆在那里等待着点燃，而这火柴盒只是在寻找一根火柴，不管是这根还是下一根，总会有火柴点燃。而火柴盒将会燃起来。我觉得大部分人都觉得自己站在正确的一边。如果每个人都认为自己站在某事的正确一边，那么每个人就会感觉自己具备正确的道德立场，而对方则代表着错误的道德立场。我是善良的，你是邪恶的。因此，我所见的一切都是我信念的偏见，同时也给予我采取下一步行动的许可。在这种框架下，冲突只会升级。我们只会走向一个黑暗的地方。

And I think the real question for me to Chama's optimism is what are the muting factors? What are the factors where one side feels like they're getting something that forces them to say, I'm not going to take the next step. I'm not going to justify the next step. And it's a really hard question to answer at this stage. Let's take that other side and just explore it for a second.
而且我认为对于詹玛的乐观主义来说，真正的问题是什么是使其变得谨慎的因素？有哪些因素让一方觉得他们得到了某种东西，迫使他们说，我不会迈出下一步，我不会为下一步提出辩解。这个问题在当前阶段很难回答。让我们把视角转到另一方，稍微探讨一下。

So the question that I've been asking myself is, because I agree with you, it doesn't matter who was responsible for this bombing because it's already been defined. But in a moral sense, it does. In a moral sense, it does. But I'm saying practically in the theater of war and the theaters near the war, it doesn't matter because it's about how is it framed. And to your point, people have already made up their minds. The pro-Israel side have made up their mind, and the pro-Palestinian side has made up their mind.
所以，我一直在思考的问题是，因为我同意你的观点，关于这次爆炸事件的责任已经确定，这已经无关紧要了。但从道德角度来看，确实有关紧要。在道德层面上，确实很重要。但我在说的是，在战争戏剧和战争附近的剧院中，这个问题并不重要，因为它取决于如何被框架。正如你所说，人们已经下定了决心。支持以色列的一方已经下定了决心，而支持巴勒斯坦的一方也已经下定了决心。

But the question that I ask myself is, okay, is that how much of an incremental escalation is it from what their status quo is? One of the interesting things I learned from the Jared Kushner interview with Lex Friedman, it's like a lot of this tension, you can trace back to the Alaxa mosque and all of the misinformation around that. He spends a section of that podcast talking about how that's been framed and reframed the misinformation to basically get people fervently up in arms, and it turns out that it isn't under the supervision of the Israelis.
但是我自己要问的问题是，这与他们的现状相比有多大的递增升级呢？我从杰拉德·库什纳在与莱克斯·弗里德曼的采访中得知的有趣的一点是，很多紧张局势都可以追溯到艾拉克萨清真寺和围绕其展开的错误信息。他在那个播客节目的一部分中谈到了如何将这些错误信息框架化和重新框架化，激起人们的激烈反应，结果发现它并不受以色列人的监管。

And in fact, you can go get a visa to visit Alaxa mosque and it's under the custodianship of the King of Jordan as an example. So that is the fact, but those facts aren't necessarily shared on the ground, and that is where a lot of this original tension comes from. So then I ask myself, okay, well, if that's been lingering for decades, how much more incrementally bad does it get for this specific thing? And I think you see it in people's actions, which is they try to use it to escalate, and my honest measurement of that escalation is that outside of the actual theater of war, most of these escalations died down pretty quickly.
实际上，你可以去办签证参观阿拉克萨清真寺，它由约旦国王保管。这是事实，但这些事实并没有在现实生活中共享，这就是许多紧张局势的根源。所以我自问，好吧，如果这个问题已经存在了几十年，那么对于这个特定的事情，它还会进一步恶化到什么程度呢？我认为可以从人们的行动中看到，他们试图利用这一点来升级，而我的诚实的度量是，在实际战争的舞台之外，大多数这些升级行为很快就平息了。

Now, if all of these embassies were overrun, and all of a sudden you saw a Beirut-like situation, right, the US Embassy in Beirut in the early 80s, I would agree with you that this is getting really bad really quickly. But that's not what we saw. And I think what that speaks to more is how much hatred is actually in the heart of people versus not. And so I think that this was a moment for people to channel their anxiety and some of their aggression and some of their hatred towards America or Israel, but what it didn't was escalate. You didn't see these embassies get burned to the ground. You didn't see people getting dragged out. And so I'm not trying to justify that behavior. I'm just trying to look at it in an absolute sense and answer the question. Is it escalating or is it not escalating? And my assessment right now is that it is not escalating.
现在，如果所有这些大使馆都被攻破，突然出现了类似贝鲁特的情况，对吧，指的是80年代初的贝鲁特美国大使馆事件，我会同意你这样说，情况真的很糟糕。但我们并没有看到这种情况发生。我认为更重要的是，这反映出人们心中实际上有多少仇恨。所以我认为这是人们发泄焦虑、一些敌对情绪和对美国或以色列的仇恨的时刻，但它并没有升级。你没有看到这些大使馆被焚毁。你没有看到人们被拖出来。所以我并不是在为这种行为辩护。我只是试图从绝对意义上看待它，并回答这个问题：它是在升级还是没有升级？而我的评估是目前没有升级。

I saw on Sunday something that I thought I would never see, which is Iran put out a press release through the United Nations to Israel. You haven't seen that. That's de-escalatory. That's not an escalatory action from a country whose mission statement includes the destruction and demise of a country. So I think when push comes to shove, there are a lot of people in positions of power who understand the stakes here and are trying their best on both sides. And I hate this word, so I can't even believe I'm about to use it to find some proportionality and try to de-escalate. That's how I measure and judge what I see over the last week.
我在周日看到了一些我认为自己永远不会见到的事情，就是伊朗通过联合国向以色列发布了一份新闻稿。你可能没有见过这样的情况。这是一种缓和紧张局势的行动。对一个宣言中包含摧毁一个国家的国家来说，这并不是一种升级的行动。所以我认为，当局者们在关键时刻都明白这里的风险，并且在双方都尽力而为。尽管我讨厌用这个词，但我想要寻找一些比例，努力降低紧张局势。这就是我在过去一周所看到的情况的衡量和判断标准。

A lot of people use labels to characterize the actions, the tonality, the behavior of the other side, because everyone believes that they're on the right side. And the point of view that there is hate and anger on the other side comes from a place not out of the blue. Hate and anger doesn't just emerge from nothing. It typically comes from a place of deep hurt. I think the biggest question for me is how do you resolve the deep hurt that is being felt and has been felt by either side over a very long period of time? It's the hardest thing to answer because what do you give millions of people that have lived feeling hurt for so long, feeling challenged for so long, that makes them feel resolved in that sense. And I get there speaking about the things about the steady people. I'm speaking about the Israeli people too. And I'm speaking about the fact that these actions don't come out of the blue. They don't come out of a place of greed, maliciousness.
许多人使用标签来描述对方的行为、语气和行为方式，因为每个人都认为自己站在正确的一边。而对对方存在仇恨和愤怒的观点，并非毫无根据。仇恨和愤怒并非无中生有，通常源自深深的伤害。对我来说，最大的问题是如何解决长期以来双方都感受到的深深伤害。这是最难回答的问题，因为如何让数百万长期以来感到受伤、感到挑战的人感到满足呢？我在这里谈论的是那些稳定的人。我也在谈论以色列人民。我在说的是这些行为并非毫无根据。它们并非出自贪婪和恶意。

Let's go to an example in our own lives. Let's just say that we have a friend or we had a girlfriend at some point where there is a deep betrayal. Okay, and then there's just an unrelenting anger. To your point, before you can talk about the hurt, you have to deescalate the anger. So there has to be an active process of deescalation before you can actually resolve this stuff.
让我们以我们自己的生活中的一个例子来说明。假设我们有一个朋友或曾经有一个女朋友，在某种程度上发生了深刻的背叛。好的，然后就会有一种持久的愤怒。就你所说的，在谈论伤害之前，你必须先平息愤怒。因此，在你能够真正解决这些问题之前，必须进行一个主动的平息过程。

I thought Israel was quite clear last week. We are going into Gaza on Sunday, but then they didn't. That seemed deescalatory. And I'll just say it again, Iran puts out a press release to Israel through the UN. That seemed deescalatory. There was a moment where Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and Biden were supposed to meet. They ended up not meeting in Amman, but that seemed deescalatory. Biden, Tony Blinken, Tony refused to leave the IDF until he got some assurances about humanitarian aid in to Gaza. That seems deescalatory. Biden spending time and then reiterating those assurances from Netanyahu. Again, all of this stuff seems like both sides are in the middle of all of this chaos, not trying to light the tinderbox. And it doesn't mean that they're on a path to resolution, but I just think that they understand the stakes.
我上周认为以色列非常清楚。我们原计划在周日进入加沙，但他们没有。这似乎是降低紧张局势的措施。我再次说一下，伊朗通过联合国向以色列发布了一份新闻稿。这似乎是降低紧张局势的行动。当时约旦、巴勒斯坦权力机构和拜登应该在安曼会面。但他们最终没有在安曼会面，但那似乎也是降低紧张局势的举措。拜登、托尼·布林肯坚持留在以色列国防军，直到他得到一些关于援助加沙的保证。这似乎是降低紧张局势的行动。拜登花时间并重申了内塔尼亚胡的保证。总之，所有这些举措似乎表明双方都处于混乱中，并没有试图引燃火药桶。这并不意味着他们正朝着解决之路前进，但我认为他们明白现在的风险。

Facts, when we look at the hospital situation specifically and the fog of war, you had the New York Times getting attacked for maybe taking Hamas's word for it, then flipping. And then now there is conspiracy theory. The United States is carrying water for Israel. And then the fog of war, oh my goodness, maybe the hospital wasn't even hit. It was in the parking lot. And so it didn't even get hit. So when we look at all of that and then Shremont says, hey, wait, things haven't escalated.
事实，当我们特别关注医院的情况和战争的迷雾时，你会发现《纽约时报》被指责可能盲目相信哈马斯的说辞，然后又改口。而现在又有了阴谋论，称美国是在帮助以色列。再加上战争的迷雾，天哪，也许医院根本没有被击中，只是停车场被击中了。所以当我们考虑所有这些，然后夏尔蒙说，嘿，等一下，事态没有升级。

I actually happen to be here in Dubai right now on a business trip and I'll explain some of the feedback I've gotten from people who are Palestinian ethnically or Jordanian and Palestinian descent. I should say, and we'll get into that in a second. The ground war hasn't happened. And this seems to be one of the, as Shremont was pointing out, it's fascinating that it hasn't because it was supposed to have happened already. Do you have any thoughts on why it hasn't happened?
我实际上碰巧现在在迪拜出差，并且我将解释一些我从巴勒斯坦血统或是约旦和巴勒斯坦后裔的人那里得到的反馈。我必须说，在接下来我们会详细讨论。陆地战还没有发生。正如Shremont所指出的那样，令人着迷的是，它本应该早就发生了。你对为什么它还没有发生有什么想法吗？

One of the conspiracy theories and I hate to go down these roads because in the fog of war, I think people try to fill a vacuum. And then of course, as you were pointing out your month in Freeburg, people then use it as evidence for their side. The people here in Dubai, a number of people have pointed out this ground war is not going to happen, that it's saber rattling, but Israel is going to back down and get the hostages back. And this has been told to me by many people. And I don't know if that's wishful thinking or some kind of conspiracy theory, but what do you take from the ground war not happening? And then if you want to go back and touch on the fog of war issue here with things flipping back and forth and what is actual reality and just probably speaking escalating or de-escalating.
我讨厌涉及阴谋论的话题，因为在战争的迷雾中，我认为人们会试图填补空白。当然，正如你在弗里堡待了一个月，人们会将此作为证据来支持他们的观点。迪拜的人们指出，地面战不会发生，这只是悬着的剑，但以色列将退缩，并把人质救回来。很多人告诉过我这一点。我不知道这是一种希望的幻想还是某种阴谋论，但你对地面战不发生有何看法？然后，如果你想回到战争迷雾问题上来，讨论局势的反复，什么是实际情况，而言之可能会升级还是减少。

Look, I think that there's a few possible reasons why Israel hasn't gone in yet. Number one is they may perceive it to be a very difficult military operation. They're almost certainly walking into a trap. There's going to be ambushes everywhere, snipers, IEDs, Hamas has an elaborate tunnel network. They can disappear down that tunnel network when the fighting gets too hot. They can booby trap the access points. They've got anti tank weapons. They can take out armored vehicles. It's going to be a very difficult fight for the Israelis. And so they may be taking a pause here just to assess that situation and maybe get organized for it or maybe think better of it. So they may be either stopping to organize or getting cold feet.
看，我认为以色列之所以还没有进入那里可能有几个原因。首先，他们可能认为这将是一次非常困难的军事行动。他们几乎可以肯定地会走进一个陷阱。到处都会有伏击、狙击手、爆炸装置，哈马斯有一个复杂的隧道网络。当战斗变得太激烈时，他们可以消失在隧道网络中。他们可以在进入点设置陷阱。他们拥有反坦克武器。它将是以色列人的一场非常艰难的战斗。因此，他们可能在这里暂停一下，以评估情况，也许为此做好组织，或者重新考虑一下。所以他们可能要么停下来组织，要么犹豫不决。

I think second, they have to think through the consequences of going in there. Hezbollah has basically threatened to open up a northern front and invade Israel if Israel goes into Gaza. You also saw, as we saw with the reaction to the hospital bombing, that they have to be concerned about the Arab street erupting.
我认为其次，他们必须考虑进入那里的后果。如果以色列进入加沙地带，真主党基本上威胁要开辟北方战线并入侵以色列。 正如我们在对待医院轰炸的反应中所见，他们还必须担心阿拉伯街头的爆发。

And again, if they go into Gaza, this could ignite the whole Arab world. It seems to me that if you're Israel, you don't want to become the focal point for all of this anger in the Arab or larger Muslim world. There are important differences in that world. There's differences between Sunnis and Qiyyit. There's differences between Arabs and Persians and Turks. And the last thing you want is to paper over all those differences by having everybody's anger targeted at you. So I think there's very big consequences that could follow geopolitically.
再次，如果他们进入加沙地带，这可能会激起整个阿拉伯世界。在我看来，如果你是以色列，你不想成为阿拉伯或更大的穆斯林世界中所有愤怒的焦点。在那个世界中有重要的差异。逊尼派和什叶派之间有差异。阿拉伯人、波斯人和土耳其人之间也有差异。你最不希望的就是掩盖所有这些差异，让所有人的愤怒都集中在你身上。因此，我认为在地缘政治上可能会有非常重大的后果。

I think, again, the war would almost certainly not just be a single front war against Gaza. It could turn into a multi-front war. So that's what I think the second reason.
我认为，再次出现的战争几乎肯定不仅限于对加沙的单线战争，而可能演变成为一场多线战争。这就是我认为的第二个原因。

I think the third reason is you have to believe that there's furious diplomacy going on behind the scenes. And I think this is what Chamath is referring to. What we don't know, obviously, are the content of those conversations. We don't know what the Biden administration has told the Netanyahu government. We don't know if they've said to them, listen, we are not going to get involved in this. Publicly, they've said that we stand with Israel, but you just have to wonder what they're privately telling the Israelis.
我认为第三个原因是你必须相信在幕后存在着激烈的外交活动。我想这就是Chamath所指的。显然，我们不知道那些交谈的具体内容。我们不知道拜登政府对内塔尼亚胡政府说了什么。他们可能告诉过他们，听着，我们不会介入这个问题。公开地，他们表示我们与以色列站在一起，但你不禁好奇他们私下里会告诉以色列人什么。

All of that being said, I think that Israel has declared that it's at war with Hamas. There are these stories that are coming out daily of these atrocities that were perpetrated by Hamas. I saw once by paramedics who discovered the bodies and described the way they were tortured, the population of Israel demands retribution. And so Netanyahu is under intense domestic political pressure to deliver on that.
尽管这些都说了，我认为以色列已宣布与哈马斯交战。每天都有这些发生的暴行的报道，这些暴行都是哈马斯所犯下的。我曾见过一次，由医护人员发现尸体并描述他们被折磨的方式，以色列民众要求报复。因此，内塔尼亚胡面临着国内政治上巨大的压力来采取行动。

So I think that Chamath is right that things haven't escalated yet, but I wouldn't say they've deescalated. Blinken did demand and Biden did announce those relieving of the humanitarian issues in Gaza. But to my knowledge, they have not been implemented yet. They turn the water back on, I believe. OK, so I think this thing is still a powder keg and it could erupt. And again, it all comes back to this key question of does Israel go into Gaza or not? If they don't, then I think that creates room for some sort of international diplomatic effort to get the hostages back and maybe deescalate the situation. And I guess we'll find out over the next week or so.
所以我认为Chamath说得对，事情还没有升级，但我不会说它们已经缓和了。Blinken要求和拜登宣布解决加沙人道主义问题。但据我所知，这些措施尚未实施。我相信他们会重新开放供水。所以我认为这个问题仍然是一个火药桶，它可能会爆发。而且，这一切都归结到一个关键问题，以色列是否进入加沙？如果他们不这样做，我认为这将为某种国际外交努力提供空间，以便取回人质并可能缓和形势。我想我们会在接下来的一周左右找到答案。

And that you didn't even mention that there could be some deep diplomacy here going on in terms of releasing the hostages and maybe somehow they believe if they go in too early, the chances of getting those hostages out alive could be seriously diminished.
你甚至都没有提到可能存在的深层外交手法，也许他们认为如果过早行动，救出人质的机会会大大减少。

Yeah, it's strange to me that I just don't hear that much about the hostages. It seems like the Israeli population, just in terms of what they're publicly saying, seems to have almost written off the hostages. There were some video of the families of the hostages being upset that they don't feel like the government response is adequately taking the interests of their families into account, that they just seem hell bent on this invasion of Gaza. But we don't know what's happening behind the scenes. And again, that would be the way to deescalate this is you get an international effort to release the hostages in exchange for, maybe it can't be stated, but equipped for a quote where Israel does not go into Gaza on the ground. And maybe the bombing stops.
是的，对我来说，我并没有听到关于人质的太多消息，这让我感到很奇怪。以公开表态为准，以色列民众似乎对人质的关注几乎已经淡漠了。有一些视频显示，人质家属对政府的反应感到不满，认为政府没有足够重视他们的家庭利益，只是一心想要入侵加沙。但我们并不知道幕后情况。另外，释放人质需要国际努力，作为交换，可能无法明确表述，但以色列将不会进行地面入侵加沙，并且轰炸可能会停止，这将是缓和局势的途径。

Yeah. Okay. So maybe we can pivot discussion here. I will say, let me make one other point here, delving into the internal politics of another country is not something that we typically like to do, or that Americans are particularly good at. But when a situation like this happens, that could drag us into a war. We do have to kind of understand the internal dynamics of these countries.
是的，好的。所以也许我们可以转移讨论的重点。我要说的是，深入探讨另一个国家的内部政治并不是我们通常喜欢做的事情，或者说美国人并不擅长这样做。但是当出现可能卷入战争的情况时，我们确实需要了解这些国家的内部动态。

Israel is a country that for the last several years has been very internally divided. There's been something like five elections in the last four years. Netanyahu got reelected in December of 2022 by creating a new coalition with far right elements of the Israeli political system.
以色列是一个在过去几年内一直存在严重内部分歧的国家。在过去的四年里，他们举行了大约五次选举。在2022年12月，内塔尼亚胡通过与以色列政治系统中极右翼势力组建新的联盟而再次当选。

And, you mentioned the Al-Aqsa mosque and I know Jared's take on. On this was a thought that this was blown out of proportion, but I'll give you a different perspective on this. I've just been researching this. If you read Al Jazeera, what they point to is a the emergence of a far right figure named in a Mar Ben Gavir, who has become a member of Netanyahu's government as a result of this coalition that was forged in December.
而且，你提到了阿克萨清真寺，我知道贾里德的看法。对此，我会给你带来一个不同的观点。我刚刚在研究这个问题。如果你读阿尔贾齐拉（Al Jazeera），他们指出的是一个名为马尔本·加维尔（Mar Ben Gavir）的极右翼人物的崛起，他由于在去年12月达成的联盟中成为了内塔尼亚胡政府的一员。

And Ben Gavir has been previously he was a fringe sort of anti Palestinian far right provocateur. When he was 19 years old, he basically had somehow stolen or taken the hood ornament from Yitzhak Rabin, the then prime minister's car, and was waving around saying that if we can get to your car, we can get to you. Three weeks later, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a far right religious extremist in Israel because they felt that he had committed treason by signing the Al-Aqsa courts. Ben Gavir was an implicated himself, but it gives you a sense of kind of where he's coming from.
本加维尔曾经是一个边缘式的反巴勒斯坦极右煽动者。19岁的时候，他曾以某种方式偷走或拿走了当时的以色列总理伊扎克·拉宾的车上的引擎盖饰物，然后挥舞着说：“如果我们能接近你的车，我们就能接近你。”三周后，伊扎克·拉宾因以色列一个极右宗教极端分子认为他签署了阿克萨清真寺走廊的条约而遭到暗杀。本加维尔本人虽然没有直接参与，但这样的事情给你带来了他的大体立场的感觉。

And Ben Gavir has led over the past year several incursions into the Al-Aqsa mosque area. And the reason he said he's done this is to show that the Al-Aqsa mosque in the Dome of the Rock, the Huram al-Sharif, which is the third holiest site in Islam. After Mecca Medina, he says that that is under the sovereignty of Israel, that that belongs to Israel. There is also a faction of the Israeli far right that wants to build the third temple on the temple mount. You have to understand that that cannot happen while the Al-Aqsa mosque is still there. So you have these, I don't mind saying, crazies, I mean, to destroy or even to imply that you would ever destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque is such an explosive issue. It would turn the entire Muslim world against Israel, and basically I think it would be the end of Israel. But you have these figures who've now been incorporated into Netanyahu's cabinet. And they are, I think, far to the right of Netanyahu, but they are proctoring Netanyahu. They seem to be banged for some sort of religious war.
本加维尔（Ben Gavir）在过去一年领导了几次进攻阿克萨清真寺区域的行动。他做此举的原因是要表明阿克萨清真寺和岩石圆顶厦（Al-Aqsa mosque in the Dome of the Rock），也就是伊斯兰教中第三圣地的哈拉姆-阿沙里夫，根据他的说法，是处于以色列主权之下、属于以色列。以色列极右翼妄图在圣殿山（temple mount）上建造第三座圣殿。你要明白，只要阿克萨清真寺仍然存在，这是完全不可能发生的。因此，我不介意说，你必须理解这些人是疯狂的，我是说，要摧毁甚至暗示你愿意摧毁阿克萨清真寺，这是非常具有爆炸性的问题。这将使整个穆斯林世界与以色列为敌，并且基本上我认为这将是以色列的末日。但是，这些人现在已被纳入内塔尼亚胡（Netanyahu）的内阁，并且他们在右翼的立场上远远超过内塔尼亚胡，但却成为内塔尼亚胡的支持者。他们似乎渴望某种宗教战争的到来。

So, you know, the domestic politics in other countries is not something that we're totally familiar with, but you have to understand that Israel does have these elements. And man, I hope that the Biden administration is telling Netanyahu that, yeah, we stand with Israel, but not if you're going to follow the advice of these far right religious forces. This is, I think, a very important point to pause on here and maybe unpack, which is, as I said, I'm here in Dubai and had this trip planned. And actually, what's your hearing? What do people say?
所以，你知道，在其他国家的国内政治方面，我们并不完全熟悉，但你必须明白以色列确实存在这些因素。而且，我希望拜登政府正在告诉内塔尼亚胡，是的，我们支持以色列，但如果你听从这些极右派宗教力量的建议，我们就不会支持你。我认为这是一个非常重要的观点，值得停下来仔细思考一下，也许可以解释一下。就像我刚才说的，在迪拜我听到了些什么呢？人们有什么说法？

Yeah, it's fascinating. And this is going to get a little touchy. And so I just want to be clear. I'm going to tell people what the conversations are here. It's not necessarily me endorsing any of these positions. And, of course, I'm no expert, of course. And on Saturday night, I went to a Bob Mitzvah, my friends, daughters had their Bob Mitzvah. And Tuesday night, I had dinner. Sorry, where in Israel? No, in the Bay Area. And then I flew here. And this juxtaposition where I had dinner last night with five Jordanians who are of Palestinian descent. And they universally are appalled by Hamas and they're what happened, right? So just say that right out front. And then they are perplexed why there is no discussion in the West in America of the conditions that could have led to this and the treatment of the Palestinian people. And that's the Palestinian people who they believe are living in apartheid. And that word is used over and over again. And that they have now a generation of people who have no hope and a generation of people who have nothing to lose. And that they have nothing to live for.
是的，这真是令人着迷。不过，这可能会变得有些敏感。所以我只是想明确一下。我会告诉人们这里的对话是什么。这并不代表我支持其中任何立场。当然，我也不是专家。在周六晚上，我参加了一个朋友孩子的巴特密茨瓦仪式。周二晚上，我在哪儿吃饭？不，是在海湾地区。然后我飞到这里。这种并置让我感到困惑，昨晚我与五位约旦人共进晚餐，他们是巴勒斯坦后裔。他们普遍对哈马斯和发生的事情感到震惊，对吧？所以我要先说这个。然后他们为什么对西方和美国没有讨论可能导致这种情况和对巴勒斯坦人民的待遇的条件感到困惑。他们认为巴勒斯坦人民生活在种族隔离中，并且这个词被一次又一次地使用。他们认为现在有一代人失去了希望，以及一代人没有东西可以失去，也没有东西可以活得好。

And this is the piece of the discussion that has gotten a lot of people in the West, I think, in trouble talking about it.
这是讨论中引起许多西方人困扰的部分。

And this is the first producer who was tweeting, hey, listen, you know, very early on, like on the on 10, 7, Israel has to abide by international law, etc.
这是第一位在推特上发帖的制片人，他说：“嘿，听着，你知道的，以色列必须遵守国际法，等等。”

And this came up over and over again from Muslims here in Dubai that the West is not in the free world is not holding Israel accountable to human rights standards, basic standard tenets of war.
在迪拜的穆斯林们一再提到，西方世界没有对以色列在人权标准和战争基本原则上负责，没有为其行为追究责任。

And I was coming into the trip a little bit more positive. And now there's such a deep hurt on both sides of this that I got to see, you know, from, from both of these events and people suffering that I'm my normally positive outlook has been a little bit shaken, if I'm being honest. It looks very intractable to me.
我进入这次旅程的时候稍微更加积极一些。现在，这个问题给了我一种深刻的伤害，无论是从这两个事件还是人们的痛苦中我都能看到。说实话，我通常积极的态度受到了一些动摇。对我来说，它看起来非常棘手，无法解决。

And yeah, to even go near the topic of what has Israel contributed to this situation and in the treatment of the Palestinian people, that's what the people in the region want to hear us talk about or just hear the world talk about any reaction to some of the protest that happened in Europe and people that took to the streets.
是的，甚至提及以色列在这种情况以及对巴勒斯坦人的待遇方面做出了什么贡献，这是该地区人民想听到我们谈论的，或者只是想听听世界对欧洲抗议活动和走上街头的人们的任何反应。

What was their perspective on that? I think their perspective is a very small percentage of Americans care about the Palestinian people.
他们对此持什么观点？我认为他们的观点是，只有很少一部分美国人关心巴勒斯坦人。

And, you know, if you look at the surveys that have gone on and I have some of the survey data that's been done and I'm not sure Americans views on this are the most important views for us to be focused on, but a very small percentage of people are aligned with the Palestinian people as opposed to with the state of Israel.
而且，你知道的，如果你看一下已经进行的调查，我有一些调查数据，我不确定美国人关于这个问题的观点是否是我们应该关注的最重要的观点，但有非常少一部分的人支持巴勒斯坦人，而不是以色列国家。

So, well, I mean, the biggest challenge in finding a path towards, I don't want to just be so generic and say the word peace. No, I think that's the word. But towards some form of understanding and settlement with each other is that there's a framing right now that you have to pick a side. You're not allowed to be pro-Israel and also be sympathetic and empathetic to the plight of the children in Gaza.
所以，嗯，我的意思是，寻找通向某种形式的理解与和解之路最大的挑战在于，现在形势下，你必须选择一方立场。你不被允许既支持以色列，又对加沙的孩子们的困境怀有同情和共鸣。

You're not allowed to say, I'm looking out for the Palestinians, but I believe Israel should have a state. You're not allowed to point out the fact that there are multiple Muslim majority countries and there's only one Jewish state, while also saying that what the Israelis have done may also not be right.
你不能说：“我在关心巴勒斯坦人的利益”，却又认为以色列应该有一个国家。你不能指出有多个穆斯林国家而只有一个犹太国家的事实，同时又说以色列人所做的事也可能不正确。

You're not allowed to take a nuanced point of view and you're not allowed to address the variance in behavior over time with each of these different sides, and how there is a massive complicated mess here, that it has to be pick your side, your pro Israeli, we need to wipe out x y or z, or your anti Israeli and as a result, your anti Semite.
你不能以细腻的观点来看待问题，也不能针对不同方面在行为上随时间变化的差异进行讨论，也不能强调这里面的复杂混乱局面，只能选择一个立场，要么支持以色列，认为我们需要消灭X、Y或Z，要么反对以色列，结果就是你被视为反犹太主义者。

And the fact that we conflate all of these things together and force people to jump on a side is what is also escalating that we can't actually have conversations around these topics that it all ends up being pick a side and then let's figure out how many people and what resources are on one side and what people and what resources are on the other.
而且，我们把所有这些事情混为一谈，并迫使人们站在一方，这也导致我们无法就这些话题进行真正的对话，最后一切都变成选一方，然后看看有多少人和资源站在一方，另一方又有多少人和资源。

And I think that this notion that we have almost a cancel culture behavior that's now leached into this discourse, that if you try and talk about the plight of Palestinians, you cannot also be pro Israel is what's keeping us from making progress in finding a path to resolution. And I think that's the biggest issue right now and we leverage the, you're not a loyalist, you're not moral, you're not a good person, you're evil.
我认为我们现在几乎具有“取消文化”行为的观念已经渗透到这种交流中，如果你试图谈论巴勒斯坦人的困境，就不能同时支持以色列，这是阻止我们在找到解决之路上取得进展的原因。我认为这是目前最大的问题，我们利用这样一种方式来指责你，说你不忠诚，你不道德，你不是一个好人，你是邪恶的。

If you don't stand on our side, and both sides are act that way. And it's that's the hardest thing to change. It's I think the only way to find a path is to change that first. And I think starting with empathy is the only way, but man, that's impossible right now. Fucking impossible.
如果你不站在我们这一边，双方都会这样做。这是最难改变的事情。我认为找到一条路径的唯一方法是首先改变这种情况。我认为以共情为起点是唯一的方法，但是，天哪，现在这是不可能的。他妈的不可能。

Yeah, it's hard. Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm just I'm just super like, well, I'm super emotional about this because I just don't like the like, you know, so there are broadly speaking to factions that we're seeing out in the streets.
是的，这很难。对不起。我很抱歉。我只是...我只是超级喜欢...嗯，我对这件事情非常情绪化，因为我不喜欢这种方式，你知道的。总体来说，我们在街上看到了两派的分歧。

Either denouncing Israel of supporting the Palestinians. I think there is a group of people who genuinely hate Jews or hate Israel and do not believe in Israel's right to exist. And are preaching things like decolonization, which is a recipe for for genocide.
无论是谴责以色列支持巴勒斯坦人，我认为有一群人真正憎恨犹太人或憎恨以色列，并且不相信以色列的存在权利。他们宣扬类似去殖民化的主张，这是一种引发种族灭绝的危险之路。

Then there are people and probably a larger group who I think are concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people who recognize the conditions they have as deplorable. And that the tactics that Israel uses to enforce its security, whether it's the occupation of the West Bank or the blockade of Gaza are unsustainable and create unfair conditions for the Palestinians.
然后还有一些人，可能是更多的一群人，我认为他们关心巴勒斯坦人民的困境，他们承认他们所处的条件是令人不堪的。以及以色列用来维护其安全的策略，无论是对西岸的占领还是对加沙的封锁，都是不可持续的，并为巴勒斯坦人创造了不公平的条件。

So in other words, they're not saying that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. They are principally concerned with helping the Palestinians and achieving a Palestinian state. It seems to me of paramount importance that Israel.
换句话说，他们并不是说以色列没有存在的权利。他们主要关心的是帮助巴勒斯坦人，并实现一个巴勒斯坦国家的目标。对我来说，以色列至关重要。

Separate these two groups by understanding the concern and I would apply this to American leadership as well by understanding the concerns of the latter and hopefully getting us on a path to resolving them totally so as to isolate the haters totally
通过理解这两个群体的关切来分开它们，我也会将此应用于美国的领导层，通过理解后者的关注点，希望能够完全解决它们，从而彻底孤立那些心怀恶意的人。

Because otherwise this whole thing is headed towards a gigantic disaster where and I think it's a disaster for for Israel.
因为否则整个局势将朝着一场巨大的灾难前进，我认为这将是对以色列的灾难。

Most of all is that Israel could be destroyed. But I think the whole world is being asked to pick a side too. And that's where this escalates into a much bigger, broader conflict. It's it's that. Yeah. And in the British country and even within the US we're being asked to pick a side and now we're seeing civil unrest in the US.
最重要的是以色列可能会被摧毁。但我认为整个世界也被要求选择一方。这就是问题升级为更大、更广泛冲突的原因。是的，在英国和甚至美国国内，我们也被要求选择一方，现在我们看到美国发生了社会动荡。

The frustration as well amongst people who are of who are Muslim or who are Palestinian to send or Jordanian or just in the region generally is that Hamas set this process back decades. And there's like a great frustration that maybe some progress was being made and that we could come to some normalcy in a two-state solution and that Hamas did this exactly because so much progress has been made recently. I think that is the best theory about why this happened now is that there was a process of normalization happening between Israel and a number of these Arab states and and we talked about it last week that Jared Kushner set this in motion.
在穆斯林、巴勒斯坦人、约旦人或地区其他人中，对哈马斯的失望感十分强烈。哈马斯使这个进程倒退了几十年。人们非常沮丧，因为也许一些进展正在取得，我们可能会在两国解决方案中实现一些正常化，而哈马斯之所以这样做，正是因为最近取得了如此多的进展。我认为，关于为什么此时发生这种情况的最佳理论是，以色列和一些阿拉伯国家之间正在发生正常化的过程，我们上周也谈到了贾里德·库什纳引发了这一进程。

There were three or four deals that were signed between Israel and the Gulf Arab states, bringing about normal relations and Saudi Arabia was on the table as being the next one. There was a effort underway to negotiate a normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia that is now completely on ice. And at risk of the other agreements may be being ripped up because if Israel goes in and has a massive ground invasion and there's more suffering and death that that will maybe blow all those accords up.
在以色列和海湾阿拉伯国家之间，已经签署了三四项协议，以实现正常关系，而沙特阿拉伯可能成为下一个签署国。目前正在努力谈判以色列和沙特阿拉伯之间的关系正常化，但这个进展已经被完全搁置。而且，如果以色列进行大规模地面入侵，并导致更多痛苦和死亡，那么其他协议可能也面临被废除的风险。

I think that what Hamas may have been concerned about to accept you want to impute strategic logic to their decisions, even those decisions are atrocities. But if they have a strategic purpose in mind, it's to derail that process of normalization because if the entire Arab world basically normalize relations with Israel before the Palestinian question is resolved, it takes a major carrot off the table in their negotiations or whatever they want to achieve.
我认为哈马斯可能担心的是你试图为他们的决策赋予战略逻辑，即使这些决策是暴行。但如果他们有一个战略目标在脑海中，那就是为了阻止彻底的阿拉伯世界与以色列正常化关系的进程，因为如果在巴勒斯坦问题解决之前，整个阿拉伯世界基本上与以色列正常化关系，那么在谈判中，这将是他们的一个重要筹码或者他们想要实现的任何目标。

So I think that to thwart that process was a big part of the goal here. But I do think that what this has shown is that getting to a larger Middle East peace without resolving the Palestinian question is likely to be a failed strategy. I just don't know. It's impossible. It's impossible. And so, again, this does not justify anything Hamas did. But I think that what these events have now created is a dynamic where the Palestinian question is now front and center and everything else is basically paused until this gets resolved.
我认为，阻碍这一进程是这里的主要目标之一。但我确实认为，这件事已经表明，如果不解决巴勒斯坦问题，实现更广泛的中东和平可能是一种失败的策略。我不知道。这是不可能的。不可能的。所以，再次强调，这并不能为哈马斯所做的任何事情辩解。但我认为，这些事件现在所创造的局势是巴勒斯坦问题现在变得至关重要，其他一切基本上都暂停，直到这个问题得到解决。

Now, as I was saying about the two-state process, again, I was doing some research. There rarely hasn't been any work on the two-state solution for roughly a decade. Obama was the last president who tried. He explicitly said that Israel should try to make peace based on the 1967 lines, but with land swaps to accommodate for the changes that have happened on the map. Since then, Netanyahu was very irate at that formulation, by the way. He never had a good relationship with Obama because of that. And then John Kerry, who is Secretary of State under Obama, made a major effort to try and bring about a two-state solution. And frankly, it went nowhere. And a big part of the reason why is that Netanyahu said that, listen, the only situation that's acceptable to Israel from a security standpoint is that we must control all security west of the Jordan River.
好的，关于两国方案，我正在做一些研究。大约过去十年很少有人在进行关于两国解决方案的工作。奥巴马是最后一个尝试的总统。他明确表示以色列应该努力基于1967年的边界线寻求和平，并通过土地交换来适应地图上已发生的变化。此后，尼坦雅胡对这个提议非常恼火。他与奥巴马从没有良好的关系，也因此而产生了矛盾。接着，现任国务卿约翰·克里也做出了重大努力，试图实现两国解决方案。但事实上，没有取得任何进展。其中一个很大的原因是尼坦雅胡说过，唯一对以色列安全可接受的情况是我们必须控制约旦河以西所有的安全事务。

So, in other words, we must control security in the West Bank. And his argument was that, look, adjacent land is very important. If you create a Palestinian state there where they have total sovereignty over their own security, they could be digging tunnels under the wall. He basically said it could turn into 20 gazas. And he's got his point of view. And when people challenged him on this, he said, listen, you don't live here. We live here. We understand the security situation. That's what he said to John Kerry.
所以，换句话说，我们必须控制约旦河西岸的安全。他的论点是，你看，相邻的土地非常重要。如果你在那里建立一个巴勒斯坦国家，让他们对自己的安全拥有完全主权，他们可能会在墙下挖隧道。他基本上说那里可能变成20个加沙地带。他有他自己的观点。当人们对此对他提出质疑时，他说，听着，你们不是住在这里的。我们住在这里，我们了解安全形势。这就是他对约翰·克里说的话。

So the whole process fell apart. And since then, the idea has been for Israel to move forward, again, on this larger normalization project with the rest of the Middle East, putting the Palestinian question to one side. The idea has basically been, listen, if you won't make peace with us, and this goes back to Arafat at Camp David... turning down the deal that was on the table that Clinton brokered with a hood, a hood, Barack. If you won't make a deal with us, we'll just go around you. Your two rejections, you're too difficult. You're too hard to make a deal with. So we're just going to put that to one side.
所以整个过程彻底崩溃了。从那时起，以色列的想法就是与中东其他国家再次推动这项更大的正常化计划，把巴勒斯坦问题放在一边。基本上的想法是，听着，如果你们不愿与我们和平共处，这还可以追溯到阿拉法特在戴维营的时候...拒绝了克林顿与伊拉克的调停下提出的协议。如果你们不愿与我们达成协议，我们就绕过你们。你们拒绝了两次，你们太固执，与你们达成协议太难。因此，我们将把这个问题放在一边。

And that really has been the process for the last decade, I would say, since John Kerry's initiative fell apart. The process has been starting with Kushner under Trump. And then I think Biden tried to extend it by brokering the Saudi Arabia deal. The idea was, let's put the Palestinian question to one side. We'll work on these other deals. I think now that that process has fallen apart. So the two-state solution, that process died back in 2014. This idea of going around has basically fallen apart now. And so I think this is why people are pretty pessimistic about where things go from here is, what is the process?
我认为，在过去的十年中，这基本上一直是这样的进程，从约翰·克里的倡议破裂开始。这个进程始于特朗普时代的库什纳。然后，我认为拜登试图通过斡旋与沙特阿拉伯达成协议来延续这一进程。这个想法是，让巴勒斯坦问题放在一边，我们来处理其他协议。我认为现在这个进程已经瓦解了。所以，两国解决方案这个进程在2014年就已经死掉了。绕过这个问题的想法基本上也瓦解了。所以我认为人们对未来的走向相当悲观，因为他们不知道这个进程是什么。

And meanwhile, you have this hard shift inside Israeli domestic politics to the right. You've got these religious factions who believe that the entirety of the West Bank, what they call Judea and Samaria, is their God-given right. And if you go back to the Netanyahu's government forming in December of 2022, the first plank was to say that Judea and Samaria belong to us. We have sovereignty over them. We're not giving them up. So what room is there for compromise? And since then, they've been expanding the settlements in the West Bank.
同时，以色列国内政治发生了明显向右的转变。有一些宗教派别认为整个约旦河西岸，也就是他们所称的犹太人居住地犹太和撒玛利亚，是他们天赐的权利。如果我们回顾一下2022年12月内塔尼亚胡政府的组建，他们首要目标就是宣称犹太和撒玛利亚属于我们，我们对其具有主权，我们不会放弃。那么在这种情况下，还有什么妥协的余地呢？自那时以来，他们一直在扩建犹太人定居点。

Let me ask you a question just to shift the question for a second. The thing that surprised me the most over this past week were the extent of the protests, some violent in the United States and in Western Europe. And I'm curious to hear from you guys. Was that overwhelmingly about pro-Palestine and making sure that there wasn't a human rights atrocity in Gaza? Or was that a emergence of like a simmering anti-Semitism that we hadn't seen? Well, both. That's kind of my point. Is there's type one and type two? Type one is the true hatred. It's the denial of the Israeli right to exist. However, there is a type two, which is legitimate concern over the condition of the Palestinians and the desire to resolve that by creating a Palestinian state. And until you separate those two things, you're not going to make progress.
让我问你一个问题，只是稍微转移一下话题。上周最让我惊讶的是在美国和西欧发生的规模广泛的抗议活动，其中一些还非常暴力。我很好奇听听你们的意见。那些抗议活动主要是关于支持巴勒斯坦，确保加沙没有发生人权暴行呢？还是出现了我们之前没有见过的潜在反犹太主义？实际上都有。这是我的观点。有一种是真正的仇恨，就是否认以色列的存在权利。然而，还有一种是对巴勒斯坦人状况合理关切，并通过建立巴勒斯坦国来解决问题的愿望。在你把这两种情况分开之前，进展是不可能的。

Your type two can breed a type one is the real scary reality. The simmering anti-Semitism that you can have a legitimate concern about the people of Palestine because you always are going to be concerned about the oppressed being oppressed by the oppressor. And that then translates into an anti-Semitism because you say that it's the Jewish people that are perpetrating this upon those people. Therefore, the Jewish people need to go. And I've heard friends of mine in the last week who have said awful things like all Muslims need to go. Well known, well respected public people have said this to me in private. I can see where the hatred can come from a place of hurt. I can see that when people feel sympathetic towards the Palestinian plight, they can then turn into anti-Semitism. And so I do think that there are two distinct groups today. But my concern is that just like what happened in the past, that can then breed into a more generalized, more fiery and more scary situation where it really is anti-something, genocidal. On both sides, by the way.
你们这种二型人可以繁殖一型人，这是真正可怕的现实。你们对巴勒斯坦人的关切是合理的，因为你们总是关注压迫者对被压迫者的压迫。然后，这就转化为反犹主义，因为你们说是犹太人在对这些人施加压迫。因此，犹太人需要离开。在过去的一周里，我听到了我的朋友们说了一些可怕的话，比如所有穆斯林都需要离开。众所周知，备受尊敬的公众人物在私下对我说过这样的话。我能理解仇恨很可能来自受伤的地方。我可以理解当人们对巴勒斯坦的困境感到同情时，他们可能会变成反犹主义。因此，我认为今天存在着两个明显的群体。但我的担心是，就像过去发生的那样，这可能会演变成一个更普遍、更激烈和更可怕的局势，真正成为反某种族的、灭绝式的局面。顺便说一句，两方都如此。

I think what we're describing here is a classic vicious cycle where you start with there's conditions of occupation that breeds resistance. That breeds extremism. Extremism breeds fear on the part of Israelis because they get attacked. And then that breeds harsher security conditions, the next level of occupation or blockade. And then that just feeds the cycles. And so the question is how you break that cycle because the Israelis right now, and I'm sure Netanyahu would make this point, if we open things up, if we gave you a Palestinian state, what's to stop 30,000 Hamas fighters?
我认为我们在这里描述的是一个经典的恶性循环，其起始点是占领条件导致抵抗。抵抗引发极端主义。极端主义使以色列人感到恐惧，因为他们受到攻击。然后，这就促使更严厉的安全条件、下一级的占领或封锁。这只会加剧循环。因此，问题是如何打破这个循环，因为以色列人目前，我确定内塔尼亚胡会提出这一观点，如果我们开放事物，如果我们给你一个巴勒斯坦国家，什么能阻止3万名哈马斯战士？

If we opened up the walls around Gaza, what's to stop 30,000 Hamas fighters from mastering us in our homes? And if you do a ground invasion, are you inspiring more radicalization to free for every and so for every kill? They've got brothers. They've got sisters. They've got parents. They've got kids. They've got aunts and uncles. And they become the next generation of extremists. How does the cycle break, I think, is the frustrating part here?
如果我们打开加沙周围的墙壁，有什么能阻止3万名哈马斯战士闯入我们的家中并对我们施加控制呢？而如果进行地面入侵，你是不是会激发更多人支持极端主义，为每一个被杀的人寻求自由？他们有兄弟，姐妹，父母，孩子，还有叔叔和阿姨。他们将成为下一代极端分子。如何打破这个循环，我认为，这是令人沮丧的部分。

And just looking at the reaction to the US, we saw a lot of discussion over young students writing arguments that Israel had brought this on themselves and were solely responsible for the Hamas attack. And this has led to massive outrage amongst donors to Ivy League schools like Penn and Harvard. And obviously those have very large endowments. And this is now leading to many of them calling out of commitments they've made. The Wexner Foundation founded by Victoria Secrets billionaire said it's breaking off ties with Harvard. D'Don Ofer quit the executive board of Harvard's Kennedy School. Sit it else, Ken Griffin, who's donated more than half a billion dollars to Harvard, placed a call week last week to the head of Harvard in A.S.T. University come out in support of Israel. And then more than a dozen anonymous donors told the New York Times they felt they had a right and an obligation to weigh in here.
仅仅看看对美国的反应，我们可以看到很多讨论关于年轻学生写论据说以色列自己招惹了这个问题，并且完全应对哈马斯的攻击负责。并且这引发了许多捐助者对宾夕法尼亚大学和哈佛大学等常春藤盟校的愤怒。显然，这些学校都有庞大的捐款。现在，这导致了很多人取消了之前的承诺。维克斯纳基金会是由维多利亚的秘密亿万富翁创立的，他们表示将与哈佛断绝关系。多恩·奥费尔（D'Don Ofer）退出了哈佛肯尼迪学院的执行董事会。肯·格里芬（Ken Griffin）是哈佛的捐助者，他已经向该校捐赠了超过五亿美元，上周给哈佛校长打了一个电话，表示支持以色列。此外，超过十几位匿名捐助者告诉《纽约时报》，他们认为他们有权利和责任在这里发表意见。

And before this all happened at Penn, donors had started pulling out because of a Palestinian rights festival that happened two weeks before the events of 10, 7. From September 22 to 24, the Upan hosted the Palestine Rights Literature Festival. The festival was billed as a gathering to explore the richness and diversity of Palestinian culture, but according to multiple sources, it mostly focused on Jews, Israel and Zionism. One speaker called for ethnic cleansing of Jews. Another said violence was a necessity.
在宾夕法尼亚发生这一切之前，捐赠者已经开始撤资，原因是在10月7日事件发生前两周，宾夕法尼亚大学举办了一场巴勒斯坦权利节。从9月22日到24日，UPan主办了巴勒斯坦权利文学节。该节日宣称是为了探索巴勒斯坦文化的丰富性和多样性，但根据多个消息来源的说法，它大部分聚焦于犹太人、以色列和犹太复国主义。其中一位演讲者呼吁清洗犹太人，另一位则声称暴力是必要的。

Any thoughts, Chamath, we were talking last week about these woke madrasos. And then I guess this is the second order and third order effects coming into play. If you said it more generically, this would be a perfect opportunity for these leading universities to actually provide nuance and teach people the history of both sides and to show the perspective of both sides. That would take leadership. Yeah. It would take courageous leadership on the part of the people who run the university. Let's just be honest.
Chamath，你有什么想法，上周我们在谈论这些“觉醒”的宗教学校。现在看来，第二层和第三层的影响开始显现。如果以更普遍的方式来说，这将是这些一流大学真正提供细微差别并教导人们双方历史并展示双方观点的绝佳机会。这需要领导力。是的，需要那些管理大学的人有勇气来领导。让我们坦诚地说吧。

I think these elite universities are essentially asset management businesses that have an education, the fig leaf of education wrapped around them. So they're more like BlackRock than they are like a school. And so they behave like any for-profit asset manager would, which is that I think that as they didn't try to intervene in one way or the other over the last 15 or 20 years, in actually making sure that they were graduating the best kids. So instead, what happened is they get hijacked by professors and people who wanted one very specific strain of thinking. And I don't think it matters which strain it is, but it betrays what the point of a leading university is supposed to be. And then as a result, the people that graduate from these places are close-minded. And what that does is that that screws America because you have all of these other places graduating kids with a different mindset who then go and build the things that matter. And America just keeps falling back. And we are just slower and we are not intellectually capable of thinking in a way that we're not able to do that. And we are just a little bit more than just thinking in a way that allows us to see more than just what's right in front of us.
我认为这些精英大学本质上是资产管理企业，只不过在它们周围包裹着教育的伪装。所以它们更像是黑石集团 (BlackRock) 而不是一所学校。因此，它们的行为更像是任何营利性资产管理公司的行为，我认为它们在过去的15年或20年里，并没有试图在确保毕业生质量方面采取任何干预措施。所以，发生的事情是它们被教授和那些想要一种非常特定思维方式的人操纵。我认为这并不重要是什么思维方式，但这背离了一所顶级大学的目的。结果，从这些学校毕业的人心胸狭窄。这给美国造成了问题，因为其他一些地方的毕业生具备不同的思维方式，随后创造出重要的事物。而美国则一直在落后。我们变得缓慢，我们没有智力能力以一种超越眼前的方式思考。我们仅仅只是想要看到更多。

So I don't know what you want me to say. It's just like, it's a follow-up to what we talked about last week. And so I thought it was pertinent. SACs, looking at the free speech issue, there was some pushback online. Which is black listing young college students who had an opinion about Palestine is wrong and you're trying to cancel people, which are response to holding people accountable or canceling these students for their positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
所以我不知道你想我说什么。就像是上周我们讨论的一个延续。所以我认为这是相关的。SACs，在关注自由言论问题时，网络上出现了一些反对声音。黑名单那些对巴勒斯坦问题有意见的年轻大学生是错误的，你们试图取消这些人，这相当于对这些学生在以色列-巴勒斯坦冲突中的立场进行处罚。

Well, what's happening now is that these campuses that took outrageous positions on this whole issue are now trying to wrap themselves in the cloak of academic freedom as if that's a value they've been respecting. Free speech is not a value they've been respecting. Free speech is a value they've been imposing. And this was revealed by a survey that was just done, a fire survey that surveyed students on 248 campuses on a range of free speech issues.
好吧，现在发生的是，那些对整个问题持极端立场的校园现在试图掩盖自己在学术自由方面的行为，仿佛这是他们一直尊重的价值观。他们没有尊重言论自由这个价值观，而是在强加这个价值观。而这一点在最近一项调查中得以揭示，该调查对248个校园的学生在一系列言论自由问题上进行了调查。

So it asked them about how comfortable do you feel expressing your views on controversial topics? What is the tolerance on campus for liberal speakers or conservative speakers? How acceptable is it to engage in disruptive conduct against a speaker on campus, such as shouting them down to prevent them from speaking? What sort of administrative support do different views get on campus and how open is the campus to hearing about different issues? And what they found was that the most elite schools ranked the worst. The only elite private school to score above average on free speech was University of Chicago, which got a score of about 65 out of 100, which made them ranked number 13 overall. The rest of the top schools, the IVs were abysmal. Brown ranked number 69 Duke ranked 124. Princeton ranked 187. Stanford ranked 207. This is again out of a total number of 248. And Penn, which is where the donors are up in arm, ranked second to last, number 247. They scored 11 points on the survey. And then Harvard finished 248 out of 248 schools ranked as also known as dead last. And get this, the rating in the survey was 0.0. They scored a blue Tarski. Zero points. Blue Tarski and Waucy scored 0.0. Harvard 0.0. Point zero. Yes.
因此，它询问了学生们如何感觉在有争议的话题上表达自己的观点是否舒适？校园对于自由派演讲者或保守派演讲者的容忍度如何？在校园内，参与对演讲者进行妨碍性行为（例如高声呼喊以阻止他们发言）是否可接受？不同观点在校园内得到什么样的行政支持，校园对于聆听不同问题有多开放？研究发现，最顶尖的学校排名最低。唯一一个在言论自由方面得分高于平均水平的顶尖私立学校是芝加哥大学，他们得到了约65分，总排名第13。其他顶尖学府（常指常春藤盟校）的表现糟糕。布朗大学排名第69位，杜克大学排名第124位，普林斯顿大学排名第187位，斯坦福大学排名第207位。这是相对于共有248所学校而言的，而宾夕法尼亚大学，即捐赠人们表示抗议的地方，排名倒数第二，第247位。他们在调查中得分为11分。接下来，哈佛大学在所有248所学校中排名最后，也就是称为垫底。而且，令人吃惊的是，他们在调查中的评分是0.0。他们得到了蓝塔斯基（即完全失败）的分数，零分。哈佛得分为0.0。是的。

So, look, I think it would be one thing if these schools said to the alumni, we agree with you that some of these speakers were over the top, but this is what academic freedom is all about. But they have no standing to say anything like that because they have been suppressing views on campus. There's no consistent allowing speakers to be shouted down. They have been stifling the presentation of alternative views. And this is clearly these types of speakers, these types of views that I think absolutely crossed the line from, again, what we talked about, which is type two support for legitimate support for a Palestinian state into hatred of Israel and Jews and denying the right to exist. It absolutely crossed over. And many of these cases is a outrageous talk given by, I think, a Cornell professor who was outright praising this massacre. God, that was disturbing.
所以，你看，我认为如果这些学校对校友说，我们同意你们有些演讲者过火了，但这就是学术自由的全部意义，那么这可能就是一回事。但他们没有资格说任何类似的话，因为他们一直在压制校园里的观点。他们一直在压制提出其他观点的表达。而且，很明显，正是这些演讲者、这些观点跨越了我们所讨论的，也就是对巴勒斯坦国的支持的第二类合理支持，而演化成了对以色列和犹太人的仇恨，否认他们的存在权利。完全越过了这条界限。在许多这种情况下，都是由康奈尔大学的一位教授发表的，他公开赞美了这次大屠杀，天哪，那真是令人不安。

So look, it is exciting about this. Yes, he was excited about it. So, look, I think that these alumni have a point in saying that you, these elite campuses, have been clearly putting your thumb on the scale in favor of certain views. You've been suppressing certain views. So this must be a view that you either share or endorse or permit given that the rest of your speech regime is so restrictive and oppressive. So even though I would in a different circumstance support academic freedom, I don't think these colleges have a leg to stand on.
所以看吧，这让人兴奋。是的，他对此感到兴奋。所以，看吧，我认为这些校友在说你，这些精英校园，对某些观点明显偏袒。你们压制了某些观点。所以，这一定是你们要么同意要么支持或允许的观点，因为你们的演讲制度如此限制和压迫。所以虽然在其他情况下我会支持学术自由，但我认为这些学院没有立场。

All right, we're going to talk about some other topics today, because that's what we do on the All In Podcast. And so tangently related to the speech issues in the EU, officials held a meeting to discuss enforcement of the DSA, where Digital Services Act, for some background here, the EU's Digital Services Act updated the EU's electronic commerce directive of 2000, which was inspired by Section 230 here in the US, common carry-o laws where the common carriers, be those AOL, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, are not responsible for what individuals post on their platforms. And so that protection has been critically important, not making social media sites or WordPress into editors or having them have to censor content on their platform.
好的，今天我们将讨论一些其他话题，因为这是我们在《All In Podcast》中做的事情。因此，与欧盟的言论问题相关的议题是关于执行数字服务法案（Digital Services Act，简称DSA）的讨论会。为了背景信息，欧盟的数字服务法案修改了欧盟的2000年电子商务指令，这一指令受到了美国第230条的启发，即普通运营商法，根据这项法律，无论是AOL、Yahoo、Google还是Facebook等这些普通运营商，都不对用户在其平台上发布的内容负责。因此，这种保护措施非常重要，不会将社交媒体网站或WordPress变成编辑工具，也不会要求他们对平台上的内容进行审查。

So the DSA officially went into effect in August of this year. The main goal was to quote unquote foster safer online environments. The DSA aims to do that via tighter rules around disinformation, illegal content, and transparent advertising. Those last two, not controversial, that first one, disinformation is obviously the one that's going to be pretty challenging.
因此，数字服务法案（DSA）于今年8月正式生效。主要目标是所谓的营造更安全的在线环境。DSA旨在通过更严格的规定，包括虚假信息、非法内容和透明广告，来实现这一目标。其中后两者并不具有争议性，而虚假信息显然是一个相当具有挑战性的问题。

The DSA has been called a new constitution of the internet in an effort to shape the future of the online world. Some things the DSA covers, it forces Vlops, a new term, very large online platforms to disclose how their algorithms were. They must give users the right to opt out of recommendation systems and profiling. They must share key data with researchers and authorities. They must cooperate with crisis response requirements and they must perform external and internal audits.
DSA被称为互联网的新宪法，旨在塑造在线世界的未来。DSA涵盖了一些内容，它强制大型在线平台（被称为Vlops）公开其算法的方式。他们必须给用户选择退出推荐系统和个人资料系统的权利。他们必须与研究人员和执法机构分享关键数据。他们必须配合危机应对要求，进行内外部审计。

They want to force transparency on how content moderation decisions were made. That seems logical. They want to force transparency on the ways advertising is targeted. That also seems reasonable. And then they want ways to flag illegal content, obviously obligations around protecting minors. I don't think anybody will debate those. But it forces them to cooperate with specialized trusted flaggers to identify and remove this illegal content. I don't know who those people would be.
他们希望强制透明化内容审核决策的制定过程。这看起来很合理。他们还希望强制透明化广告定向的方式。这也是合理的。然后他们希望有办法标记非法内容，显然也要履行保护未成年人的义务。我不认为有人会对此提出质疑。但这要求他们与专业的可信标志者合作，以识别和删除这些非法内容。我不知道那些人会是谁。

Freberg, you had some thoughts. My thoughts are that the era of the open internet as a decentralized technology platform for the benefit of individuals and not to be overseen and run by governments is over. The Digital Services Act, I think, is one of the most overreaching threats to any sort of open, transparent, democratic opportunity on the internet.
弗雷伯格，你有一些想法。我的想法是，作为一个为个人受益而不受政府监管的去中心化技术平台，开放互联网时代已经结束了。我认为《数字服务法案》是对互联网上任何形式的开放、透明、民主机会的最过分的威胁之一。

The idea of the open internet, the idea of creating a network of computers that could share information and make services available to individuals around the world, freely uncensored and easy to access way, was the reason that the internet has transformed society, improved productivity and provided extraordinary benefits. The Digital Services Act is an example of a government seeing that a decentralized technology, the internet itself is meant to be a decentralized technology. There's no central servers. They are all part of a network of computers that anyone on the network can access anything else on the network.
开放互联网的理念是建立一个计算机网络，可以共享信息并为全球个人提供自由无审查和易于访问的服务。正是因为这个理念，互联网改变了社会、提高了生产力，并带来了非凡的好处。数字服务法案就是政府认识到互联网是一种去中心化的技术的一个例子。互联网没有中央服务器，而是由一系列计算机网络组成，网络上的任何人都可以访问网络上的其他内容。

Blockchain, obviously, is the more modern, exciting decentralized technology concept that is meant to avoid the scrutiny, the oversight and the control by central governments or central authorities of any sort. The Language and the Digital Services Act, I think, got squeezed through in a way that most of the people that I'm guessing past the Digital Services Act don't fully comprehend the implications of some of the decisions that they're making.
区块链显然是一种更现代、令人兴奋的去中心化技术概念，旨在避免任何形式的中央政府或中央权威的审查、监管和控制。我认为《语言和数字服务法》以某种方式被推动通过，大多数通过《语言和数字服务法》的人并没有完全理解他们正在做出的一些决定所带来的影响。

It can be easily framed as this is good for people. You cannot sell illegal content online. You cannot sell illegal goods and services. We're trying to safeguard young people. But the protection of miners means that you can no longer do personalized web experiences for anyone under 18, which means you need to know the age of everyone. And now your web experience, if you're a kid, is not going to be personalized.
这可以很容易被解读为对人们有利。你不能在网上销售非法内容。你不能销售非法商品和服务。我们正在努力保护青少年。但对未成年人的保护意味着你不能为18岁以下的任何人提供个性化的网络体验，这意味着你需要知道每个人的年龄。如果你是一个孩子，你的网络体验将不再是个性化的。

The overreach gets even worse when they say we can now go in and run evaluations of the algorithms and allow open access to your data, to third-party researchers to get into your systems and look at how you guys are running the services that you're offering on the internet. So not only are you no longer allowed to have an open internet where people can provide whatever services they want to provide, but if you're on the internet, you now have to make your service and the inside part of your service available for scrutiny by governments.
当他们表示我们现在可以进入并运行算法评估，并允许第三方研究人员访问您的数据以查看您在互联网上提供的服务时，这种过度干预变得更糟糕了。因此，不仅您不能再拥有一个开放的互联网，让人们可以提供任何他们想提供的服务，而且如果您上网了，您现在还必须使您的服务以及其内部部分对政府进行审核。

And so you have- And researchers, who are these researchers? Who sounds like a stazzy, tight- And the way it's written, it gives this commission, as the primary regulator, effectively a lot of leeway in deciding who, what, where, and how they can go into companies, go into individual servers, individual computers. I could run an individual company on my computer at home. And it gives this government the legal right in the EU to go into my computer and pull information out of my computer and scrutinize it and make decisions about what I'm doing and whether or not I'm compliant with whatever the commission's enforcement standards are of that day.
因此，你已经-而研究人员，这些研究人员是谁？谁听起来像是一个时髦，紧密的人-而且从书面的方式来看，这个委员会作为主要监管者，实际上可以在很大程度上决定谁、什么、在哪里以及如何进入公司、个人服务器和个人电脑。我可以在家里的电脑上运行一个个人公司。这给予欧盟政府合法权力进入我的电脑并从中提取信息并对我所做的事情进行审查，并根据委员会的执法标准决定我是否合规。

I mean, this is about as 1984 as you can get. And it's a real serious threat. I don't think people are recognizing the second and third-order effects of what this is going to do over time to internet services, to the quality of experience we get on the internet, and to the role that government is now going to play in policing, scrutinizing, and providing restricted access to content and services for each individual that wants to use the internet. But it's important to say, if you're a European, it'll just make Europe even more of a place you go to vacation and never to live.
我的意思是，这与1984年的情况几乎一样了。这是一个真正严重的威胁。我不认为人们意识到这将在时间推移中对互联网服务、我们在互联网上获取的体验质量以及政府在监管、审查和为每个想使用互联网的个人提供有限访问内容和服务的角色方面所产生的二级和三级影响。但是很重要的是要说，如果你是一个欧洲人，这将使欧洲成为你去度假而不是居住的地方。

Yeah. Right? I mean, we're not talking about America, right? We're talking about Europe. This is all the changes that are going to happen inside of Google, which is going to affect more than just the EU users because of the requests and the demands of the EU.
是的，对吧？我的意思是，我们不是在谈论美国对吧？我们讨论的是欧洲。这些都是即将在谷歌内部发生的变化，这将影响不仅仅是欧盟用户，还有因为欧盟的要求和需求而发生的变化。

And so the services that you are going to get around the world are going to be affected by this EU compliance regime, and it's going to be dynamic. It's a commission, basically a bunch of individuals that get to decide who, what, where, and how. And that's going to create a really scary, scary situation where a bunch of people who are going to have their own motivations, their own political leanings, their own objectives, they're going to be able to leverage their particular role in applying their particular biases to internet services.
因此，你将在全球范围内会受到这个欧盟合规制度的影响，这将是一个动态的过程。基本上，这是一个委员会，由一群个体来决定谁、什么、在哪里以及怎么做。这将导致一个非常可怕的局面，一群人会按照他们自己的动机、政治倾向和目标，利用他们在应用网络服务方面的特定角色来施加他们的特定偏见。

We saw Canada do something similar and Facebook's reaction. Google pullouts. Yeah. And Facebook's reaction was we're not going to syndicate links. So I don't know.
我们看到加拿大做了类似的事情，以及Facebook的反应。谷歌撤出。是的，Facebook的反应是我们不会进行链接联合。所以我不知道。

I would go back to another argument you make a lot, which is, which I agree with, which is the free market will act rationally here. And if Google deprecates a bunch of features and or completely pulls out of Europe, that will be the death knell for these kinds of decisions because then other governments and other people will see the cost of trying to get this kind of control.
我想回到你经常提出的另一个论点，我同意这个论点，即自由市场将在这里理性地行动。如果谷歌废弃了许多功能，或者完全退出欧洲，这将是这些决策的丧钟，因为其他政府和其他人将看到试图获得这种控制的成本。

I think the bigger issue in a moment like this is Europe has such a checkered past on these things, which is that they somehow try to find this moral high ground. And there is just this overreach and this quasi central planning that just never works. And so if this is another example of it, I would encourage all four profit companies to make the practical decision. Oh, can you imagine Google's decision making here? They've got thousands of employees in Europe. They make billions of dollars in revenue in the market. It's such a difficult situation to be in.
我认为在这样的时刻，更大的问题是欧洲在这些问题上过去历史多有波折，他们总是试图找到所谓的道义高地。然而，这种过度干预和准中央计划从未奏效。所以，如果这是又一个例子，我会鼓励所有四大营利公司做出实际决策。哦，你能想象谷歌在这里的决策吗？他们在欧洲有成千上万的员工，在市场上创造了数十亿美元的收入。这是一个非常困难的处境。

Not if what you're saying is true, not if what you're saying is this is the threat of the internet. I think it'll be very easy for Larry and Sergey to say, cut it, move on. No, Europe is too big a market for Google or any other major tech company to exit. There's just no way. What they're going to do is comply. There won't be a market.
如果你说的是真的，如果你说的是互联网的威胁，我们不会说不是，不会说这是可以被忽略的。我认为对于Larry和Sergey来说，很容易就会说，我们接受并继续前进。不，欧洲市场对于谷歌或其他任何一家大型科技公司来说都是太重要了，他们不会退出的。这根本不可能。他们将会遵守要求。将不会有一个市场，逆来顺受去掉市场。

Well, hold on a second. What this new DSA rule does is apply penalties to social networks for not censoring what they call legal speech, which is whatever speech they say it is. So free works, right? There's going to be some sort of committee and Brussels that basically sends out takedown requests now to all these social networks.
好的，等一下。这个新的DSA规定的作用是对社交网络施加处罚，因为它们没有审查他们所称之为合法言论的内容，而这个所谓的合法言论就是他们说了算的任何言论。所以，自由还有效吗？现在布鲁塞尔将会有一个类似委员会的机构，向所有这些社交网络发送删除请求。

Yes, the DSA commission. Yeah, the DSA commission. So Europe again is just too big an area not to serve. And then what could happen is that because it's easier for companies just to have one approach where they can, there is a risk that these same policies get applied in the US. That is what happened with privacy. Remember, Europe went first with GDPR and then a lot of regulations came to America. Now the First Amendment may stand on the way here, but there is some risk that tech companies of their own accord decide that it's cheaper and easier to comply with the European regime everywhere than trying to parse their service in different markets. I'm just saying that's a risk.
是的，DSA委员会。是的，DSA委员会。所以欧洲再次是一个太大的地区而不能被忽视。然后可能会发生的情况是，因为公司只需要采取一个方法更方便，存在这样的风险，这些政策在美国也被应用。这就是隐私政策所发生的情况。记住，欧洲首先出台了GDPR法规，然后许多法规也适用于美国。现在，第一修正案可能会在这方面产生影响，但有一些风险，即科技公司自愿决定在所有地区遵守欧洲制度比试图适应不同市场更加便宜和简单。我只是说这是一种风险。

But look, let me frame it in a different way in an economic argument. So Europe is about $0.25 of every dollar revenue that Google generates. So if you think about that, that's call it $60 billion a year plus or minus. So the question is, at what point is the cost of trying to get $60 billion so great that you say it's not worth the $60 billion? And my point is that there is an economic rational argument here for it.
但是，请让我用经济的角度来表述。欧洲约占谷歌每一美元收入的0.25美元。那么，如果你考虑这个数字，年收入大概在600亿美元左右。所以问题是，追求这600亿美元的成本到了什么程度，你会认为这600亿不值得追求？我的观点是，这里存在着一个经济上的合理论证。

If it costs, for example, $10 or $20 billion to implement this stuff, that's probably the efficient frontier where when you factor in multiple compression, any factor in behavior change in Europe, which may actually degrade the $60 billion to $50 or $40, where you just throw your hands up and say, it's just not economically worth it.
如果实施这些措施的费用为例如100亿美元或200亿美元，那可能是最有效的前沿。当考虑到多个因素的压缩以及欧洲的行为改变，这可能会将原本的600亿美元降低到50亿美元或40亿美元，到那个时候你可能会举起双手说，这在经济上并不值得。

You've seen these actors make this trade off in Canada. It's not totally unreasonable that they run a model to figure out the cost. Maybe they just take the perspective that whenever this DSA commission sends us a takedown request, we're just going to do it instantly. Why wouldn't that just become the norm? In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what they'll do.
你在加拿大见过这些演员做出这样的取舍。能够运用一种模型来计算成本是完全合理的。或许他们只是认为，每当数字服务提供商委员会发送给我们一份下架请求，我们就立刻照做，这难道不会成为常态吗？事实上，我敢肯定他们会这样做的。

The management of most of these companies, really at all of them, except for Elon, they don't really care. They have the same local biases. They don't care about free speech more over. They have a lot of the same political biases that these E- I'm not supporting the DSA. All I'm saying is I think that economic rational actors will do the right thing. I think the most likely outcome is that tech companies will be craven and they'll fold those, do whatever these EU commissioners want.
除了伊隆以外，这些公司的管理层实际上不太关心这个问题。他们都有相同的本土偏见，并且对言论自由也不够重视。他们大部分也有相同的政治偏见，这和这些欧洲联盟官员有关，我并不支持DSA（民主社会主义者联盟）。我的意思是，我认为经济理性的行为者会做出正确的选择。我认为最有可能的结果是，科技公司会很卑躬屈膝，会按照欧盟委员会的要求行事。

Which then could be an opportunity for distributed blockchain. It's hard to scale them, but the devil's in the details. You guys feel this every day. Jason, you're right now in the UAE. You can communicate in certain ways through WhatsApp. You can't communicate in other ways through my message. They're just rules of usability on products and they exist all around the world. If you go to India, there's certain apps that are blocked and certain apps that are not. Maybe that's just what happens where there's just a gradient of user experiences around the world for people and we all deal with it.
这可能是分布式区块链的机会。扩展它们是困难的，但魔鬼在细节中。你们每天都能感受到这一点。Jason，你现在在阿联酋，你可以通过WhatsApp进行某些方式的沟通，但不能通过我的消息进行其他方式的沟通。这只是产品可用性规则，在世界各地都存在。如果你去印度，有些应用被封锁，有些则没有。也许这只是在全球范围内人们面临的用户体验渐变现象，我们都要应对。

We don't know exactly how heavy-handed they're going to be here. This is by definition having handed. I don't agree with it. Hold on. We don't know what this is the problem with how they've done this. This is all being done in a star chamber. We don't have any insight into what kind of content they want to take down. If it's obviously abusive content, fine, but if it's COVID information or misinformation, obviously there's going to be a problem that we saw here in the United States, just so people know.
我们不知道他们在这里会采取多么苛刻的手段。按定义认定为具有强势特点。我不同意这样做。等等，我们不知道他们如何处理这个问题。这一切都是在一个封闭且不透明的机构进行的。我们对他们希望删除哪种类型的内容一无所知。如果是明显的辱骂性内容，那还好，但如果是关于COVID的信息或错误信息，显然会出现问题，就像我们在美国看到的那样，只是让人们知道。

I like to respond to that. Yeah. In WhatsApp. Okay. Look, you're going to wait too much credit, J. Cal. I'm not giving them any credit. I do not want to see this happen. I'm not giving them any credit. I'm just saying we'll see how heavy-handed they'll be. You're assuming they're going to be super heavy-handed? We'll see. We'll see what their own citizens respond. I think the fact that a room full of commissioners in the U can send takedown requests to social media companies is by definition heavy-handed.
我喜欢去回应它。是啊，在WhatsApp上。好吧。听着，你给了J. Cal太多的信任。我不会给他们任何信任。我不想看到这种事情发生。我不会给他们任何信任。我只是说我们会看到他们会有多过分。你认为他们会非常过分吗？我们会看到的。我们会看到他们自己的公民会如何回应。我认为一个由U国委员会成员组成的房间向社交媒体公司发送请求以撤下内容的事实，从定义上来说就是过分的干涉。

Okay. Let me back up. What the Twitter files showed is that we had 80 FBI agents being the conduit for takedown requests to Twitter and presumably other social networks. No, no, but that was all on the DL. On the DL, exactly. Yes, that was not long. And yes, moreover, when they did that in their takedown requests, they would always point to, well, this tweet violates your terms of service. Okay. What the EU is doing is different. They're actually defining the terms of service. They're saying that your terms of service need to do X, Y, and Z. They're doing it explicitly. This is not on the DL. They're explicitly saying that your policy needs to be what we say it is. And when we tell you to take something down, you're going to do it. They haven't defined what that is. That's I think the issue is where is the actual definition of what's going to happen here? And that's why it's hard for us to have a discussion about this is because we don't know what they're talking about with this content. That's so problematic. It's still problematic. Whatever they say in the future is disinformation needs to be taken down. That's the framework. The fine is going to be up to 6% of global revenue for companies that do not comply. So the EU has also figured out that speeding tickets don't work and they're looking to give pretty heavy penalties. So we'll see. This is a moving target here. We don't have complete information. But yeah, it's not a moving target. We do have complete information. This is a censorship regime, Jason. We just don't know what their term for illegal or problematic content this year. And I don't want to be pitted as your adversary here. I am not in favor of this. So we're clear. But and I don't think there should be a star chamber where people get to pick what goes up and what goes down there. I think the private companies can do a good enough job there and there should be freedom of speech. Yeah, you're going to see some things you don't like grow up turn change the time.
好的，让我解释一下。Twitter的文件显示，我们有80名联邦调查局特工作为推特和可能其他社交网络传递下架请求的媒介。不，不，但这一切都是秘密进行的。秘密进行，没错。是的，这不是很久之前的事了。而且，当他们在下架请求中这样做时，他们总是会指向，好吧，这条推文违反了你们的服务条款。好的，欧盟所做的不同。他们实际上正在定义服务条款。他们说你们的服务条款需要做到X、Y和Z。他们是明确规定的。这不是秘密进行的。他们明确表示你的政策需要是我们说的那样。当我们告诉你们下架某些内容时，你们就必须这样做。他们还没有定义那是什么。我认为问题所在是这里会发生什么的确切定义在哪里？这就是为什么我们很难对此进行讨论的原因，因为我们不知道他们说的内容是什么。那个令人头疼的内容。这依然是个问题。无论他们未来说什么都应该被下架，因为那是框架。对于不遵守规定的公司来说，罚款可能达到全球收入的6%。所以欧盟也发现交通罚单不起作用，他们打算给予相当沉重的处罚。所以我们拭目以待。这个目标是移动的。我们没有完整的信息。但是，是的，这个目标是固定的。我们有完整的信息。这是一个审查制度，Jason。我们不知道他们对今年的非法或有问题内容的定义是什么。我不想被对立面对待。我不赞成这个。所以我们清楚。但是，我也不认为应该有一个星室，让人们选择什么应该上去，什么应该下架。我认为私人公司在这方面做得足够好，应该有言论自由。是的，你会看到一些你不喜欢的东西，长大变化了才知道。

I mean, it basically, as they say, sets a horizontal rule covering all services and all types of illegal content and disinformation. Illegal content could be fine. Right. Freeberg like illegal content putting a doxing somebody child pornography illegal content. I think we would all be okay with it. It's the disinformation part, right? I'm not trying to be okay or not okay. I'm just saying that like you're basically saying that whatever the rules are that they come up with that may be different than somewhere else on the internet, they get to then regulate other businesses on the internet.
我的意思是，基本上，就像他们说的那样，它设立了一条水平规则，涵盖了所有服务和所有类型的非法内容和虚假信息。非法内容可能是可以接受的。没错，就像非法内容——曝光他人隐私、儿童色情非法内容。我想我们都能够接受这一点。但问题在于虚假信息的部分，对吧？我并不是在说是否接受或不接受。我只是想说，你基本上是在说无论他们制定的规则是什么，即使与互联网其他地方存在差异，他们仍然可以对互联网上的其他企业进行监管。

I think the internet should be open. And there are. I don't want to have a commission approve what I write in my blog post. I don't want the commission telling me that what I put on Twitter or put on my website is up to them to decide whether or not it's okay to put up because they think it's illegal because it has what they need to be misinformation. Right. Already laws that exist. So disinformation, illegal content, two different things. But those laws provide some authority to a commissioner. I mean, that's the problem, right? Right. Look, the problem is in the vagueness of this. The law says that social media companies have to take down illegal content, but it doesn't say what illegal content is. It delegates the power to define it to this group of Eurocrats led by theory, Bretton. And they're meeting this week to hammer it out. So yeah, look, in practice, illegal content is going to be whatever they say it is. That is yeah, explicit censorship.
我认为互联网应该是开放的。但是现在并非如此。我不希望有一个委员会来审核我在博客文章中写的内容。我不希望委员会告诉我在Twitter上发布的内容或放在我的网站上的内容是否可以发布，因为他们认为它违法了，因为它包含了他们认为是误导信息的内容。是的，已经有了现行的法律。所以，虚假信息和违法内容是两码事。但是这些法律给了委员会一定的权威。我的意思是，问题就在于这种含糊。法律规定社交媒体公司必须删除违法内容，但并没有明确规定什么是违法内容。它将定义权力委托给了由西里尔·布雷顿领导的一群欧盟官员，他们本周将开会讨论这个问题。所以，在实践中，违法内容将是他们说是什么就是什么。这实际上是明确的审查制度。

Okay. Let's move on to our final topic. Second largest hype cycle of 2023, perhaps GLP ones. Chamath, you brought this up in our group chat. So maybe you could tee it up. Well, I was just interested in understanding everything that's been happening around GLPs. Mostly because it just seems like people think it's a panacea.
好的，让我们继续我们的最后一个议题。2023年第二大炒作期，可能会是GLP公司。Chamath，在我们的群聊中你提到了这个话题。所以也许你可以开始讲一下。嗯，我只是对了解围绕GLP公司所发生的一切感兴趣。主要是因为人们似乎认为它是一种万灵药。

We have a lot of our friends. Jason, you were the one that said this in our poker group, like four of the 12 or 13 regulars are on it. Is that right? I think it was four of like, yeah, four of 12 people were on it. Yeah, it was a third. Yeah. And then I got this really interesting chart, Nick. You may want to put this up. It basically showed how the GLP one market was tracking very similar to the AI market in terms of a hype, which is if you separated companies as a basket of people who were positively affected by GLP ones, like Lilly and Novo Nordisk, and you had a basket of companies that were disrupted by GLP ones. Those would be like Dexcom or Devita or folks like that. It eerily mimics the same hype cycle around AI, which is there's those businesses that seem to be feeding the hype train around AI. And then all of these companies that theoretically will be disrupted. And it just brought up to me that there's this incredible market movement here where I think people think that these GLP ones are a solution to everything. And I thought it was just an important thing to discuss because scientifically, the mechanism of action is still a little questionable and murky. On top of that, I think we don't know physiologically what the real long term ramifications of taking these things are. There's still a lot of mixed evidence around the total amount of weight loss you can lose, the percentage of muscle versus fat that you lose. And so yeah, I just thought it was important for us to talk about it and see what we can be a basket spread trade. Here are the companies that win, here are the companies that lose and look at that gap between the two. And it's exactly mimics people who would benefit from AI and people would lose from AI.
我们有很多朋友。Jason，你在我们的扑克组里说的就是这个，12或13个常客中有四个是用它的。是这样吗？我想是四个中的四个，没错，是三分之一。是的。然后我得到了这个非常有趣的图表，Nick，你可能想把这个发上去。它基本上显示了GLP一市场和AI市场在炒作方面有着非常相似的趋势，就像将公司分为那些受益于GLP一的人们（比如Lilly和Novo Nordisk），和那些被GLP一打乱的公司（比如Dexcom或Devita等）。这不禁让人联想到围绕AI的炒作周期，有一些企业似乎正在推动AI的炒作火车，而其他公司则可能会受到影响。这让我意识到在这里有一个令人难以置信的市场趋势，我认为人们认为这些GLP一是解决一切问题的办法。对于科学上来说，作用机制仍然有些可疑和模糊。此外，我认为我们对于长期服用这些药物的生理影响仍然不清楚。关于你可以减掉的体重总量、肌肉与脂肪的百分比，仍然有很多混合的证据。所以，是的，我只是觉得这是一个重要的讨论话题，我们可以探讨一下，看看我们能不能将公司分为两个篮子：赢家和输家，并看看两者之间的差距。这正好模仿了那些从AI中受益的人和那些从AI中受到损失的人。

Yeah, the GLP one hype, the summary is the GLP one hype cycle is as overextended as the AI hype cycle. So we should probably separate the wheat from the chaff and start by understanding what GLP ones are because I'm sure there's a lot of people in our listening community who are on their stuff. They should really probably understand where you think we should go next. We should then throw a to the salt of science himself. David Freiberg explained to us what we prepare our Uranus jokes, GLP ones. These drugs have been around for a while. They're small peptides, little proteins that bind to this GLP receptor in your gut that causes insulin to be released from your pancreas and triggers a couple of other hormones that reduce your hunger and appetite. So basically gets you to eat less. And your brain and your brain. And it's effectively a way to make you feel not hungry and you can then run a calorie deficit. And when you run a calorie deficit, your body starts starving and starts burning other parts of your body besides the glucose it can get out of the stomach where you would otherwise have food and ends up in your blood.
是的，GLP one炒作得很厉害，总结一下就是GLP one炒作周期和AI炒作周期一样过热。所以我们可能应该理清其中的是非，首先要了解GLP one是什么，因为我相信我们听众群体中有很多人对此很了解。他们真的应该明白你认为我们下一步该去哪。之后，我们应该请来科学权威David Freiberg为我们解释一下我们准备开玩笑的GLP one。这些药物已经存在了一段时间了。它们是一些小肽，绑定到你肠道中的GLP受体上，导致胰腺释放胰岛素并触发一些其他荷尔蒙来减少你的饥饿感和食欲。所以基本上让你吃得更少。以及你的大脑和你的大脑。这实际上是一种让你感觉不饿的方法，然后你就可以产生热量不足。当你产生热量不足时，你的身体开始饥饿，开始燃烧除了胃中能获得食物以外的身体其他部分，并进入你的血液中。

And it starts generating energy from your stored body fat and your muscle mass. So these have been around for a while. Novonortisk is the developer of two of the main drugs. And here's a chart of Novonortisk stock price. You can see that in the last five years, their stock has five X. They've basically gone from call it a $60 billion company to a $350 billion company in five years, largely on the back of the promise of this drug.
它开始从你储存的体脂肪和肌肉中产生能量。所以这些已经存在一段时间了。Novonortisk 是两种主要药物的开发者。这是 Novonortisk 的股票价格图表。你可以看到，在过去的五年里，他们的股价增长了五倍。在这个承诺药物的支持下，他们的市值基本上从600亿美元增长到了3500亿美元。

So these drugs have been around for a while. And there's actually one that's been on the market for a long time, but it only causes 5% body mass loss. So 5% weight loss. So people are like, oh, it's not that great. It didn't really get widely adopted. Then this new class, they added a little side chain, added another little molecule to the peptide. And as a result, it didn't get degraded as fast. It was far more bioactive in the body and caused a much greater benefit. And so suddenly people on these drugs started to see massive weight loss, massive improvement diabetes and metabolic health all moves together.
所以这些药物已经存在一段时间了。实际上，市场上已经有一种药物存在了很长时间，但它只能引起5%的身体质量减少。也就是说，减重了5%。所以人们认为它并不是那么好，它并没有得到广泛采用。然后这个新的类别，他们在肽链上添加了一个小侧链，加入了另一种小的分子。结果是，它不会被降解得那么快，它在体内更具生物活性，并带来更大的益处。因此，突然之间使用这些药物的人开始看到巨大的减重、巨大的改善糖尿病和代谢健康，所有的效果都同时展现出来。

So as you burn body fat, as you have less glucose in your blood, your metabolic condition improves. The problem is when you're starving normally, if you were to just stop eating, you would typically see that your body starts burning. First of all, the glucose and then it burns off the glycogen in your muscles, which is the next energy store. Once that's gone, your body starts burning fat. And as it's burning more fat, it also says, hey, I need to get these other molecules, which I'm not getting just from the fat, I need muscle. And your body actually starts burning muscle. And that's how your brain gets energy that it needs when you're starving is actually primarily from the degradation of muscle tissue.
当你燃烧体脂肪时，当你的血液中的葡萄糖减少时，你的新陈代谢状况会得到改善。问题是，当你正常挨饿时，如果你停止吃东西，通常你会看到你的身体开始燃烧。首先是糖分，然后是肌肉中的糖原，这是下一个能量储存库。一旦这些消耗光了，你的身体开始燃烧脂肪。当它燃烧更多脂肪时，它也会说，嘿，我需要得到这些其他分子，我单靠脂肪得不到，我需要肌肉。你的身体实际上开始燃烧肌肉，这就是你挨饿时大脑获取所需能量的方式，主要是通过降解肌肉组织。

So normally if you're just starving yourself, you'll see a ratio of weight loss where it's about 20% coming from lean muscle mass. And some of the studies that have been done on these GLP one agonists, we're seeing up to 40% of the weight loss coming from lean muscle mass being burnt off.
通常情况下，如果你只是饥饿自己，你会看到一个减重比例，大约有20%的体重减少源自肌肉组织。而一些对于GLP-1拮抗剂的研究显示，高达40%的体重减少来自于燃烧的肌肉组织。

So Jason, I don't know if you've done a DEXA scan because I think you've said publicly that you've tried it, right? I mean, you should check me. You should check out what your lean muscle mass is versus your fat composition in your body. I don't know if you have it from before, but this has been one of the concerns. Obviously, if you're not working out and you're not doing what you need to to eat protein and build muscle, you're going to be burning through a lot of that muscle mass. And so that's problem number one that's arisen that people are concerned about.
嗨Jason，我不知道你是否已经做过DEXA扫描，因为我想你曾经公开表示你尝试了这个，对吗？我的意思是，你应该检查一下。你应该查看你体内除了脂肪成分之外的瘦肌肉量。我不知道你之前是否已经做过这个检查，但这一直是人们担心的问题之一。显然，如果你不锻炼，不按需摄取蛋白质并修建肌肉，你的肌肉量会减少很多。所以这是出现的第一个问题，人们对此担忧。

The other one that's really, I don't know if it's concerning or not, but when people go off these drugs, they gain the weight back in a very quick way. And there's two reasons for this. One is if you haven't actually changed your behavior, you haven't changed your exercise patterns and you suddenly have the appetite suppressing drug taken out of your system, you start eating more food again. And when you've been in a state of starvation, your metabolism, your baseline metabolism goes down. So instead of burning on average 2,000 calories a day, your body's only burning at 1,200 calories a day. So suddenly, if you go back to eating 2,000 calories a day, because you're no longer have the appetite suppressor, you're going to have a cow. You're going to reinflite.
另外一件事情，我不知道是否令人担忧，但是当人们停药时，他们会以非常快的速度恢复体重。其中有两个原因。第一个是如果你并没有真正改变你的行为，没有改变你的运动模式，而突然停止了抑制食欲的药物，你又开始吃更多食物。当你处于饥饿状态时，你的基础代谢率会下降。所以你的身体平均每天只能燃烧1200卡路里，而不是2000卡路里。所以突然间，如果你开始每天摄入2000卡路里的食物，因为你不再有食欲抑制剂，你的体重会加重。

And so your metabolism goes down, the appetite suppressor goes away and you gain all the weight back. If you haven't changed your behavior otherwise.
因此，你的新陈代谢速度变慢，食欲抑制剂失去作用，你重新增加了所有的体重。除非你改变了其他方面的行为。

And so I don't know if you guys saw this clip I sent out of Arnold Schwarzenegger talking with Howard Stern, but he was talking about how like, I can't do a Howard accent, Jake, how you could probably do it really well. But you know, what do you think of the ozambic? But you know how the ozambic is, you know, Americans used to be very interested in working hard. And I don't know why that's so bad, but you get up at 5 AM and you work hard. And you do it and you make yourself strong. Right. That's what it's about. You don't need to do a little baby girl of sempik in your side. Oh, look, I'm in the elastoy. Thank you. Wait, did you listen to the clip? Is that what he said? I said, exactly what he said. You don't exactly. I don't make it this way. I was here. What do you mean, it's all about hard work? Hard work. That's why I say in my book, you know, work your ass off. And it's this short cut. What built this country? How do you think I got to Mars? Is it people that were whimping out? This is a man. It's great. No, this was a bossy of women and men that went out there at 5 AM and went up and they struggled and they fought and they worked their butts off. That's what made this country great. He said that in response to, I think Howard Thieran's question is about Osempek. Yeah, like don't take a short problem. We're basically creating a new multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical drug system that people are going to have to stay on in order to stay healthy. Do we know what the long-term effects of taking semagrutide are and can be and will be? Do we really know? These drugs have been around for quite a long time. So there are various side effects, but in terms of are we debilitating our health over the long run? It seems to be a reasonably safe drug and it seems to be a drug that folks are recognizing as being well worth the cost and whatever the risks may be. Well, what are the implications for the benefit? Do you lose 40 percent? Well, it's about 16 percent of your weight loss. You typically lose, right? Yeah, that's the reason. Yeah. They'll say up to 20 percent. If you lose weight, you'll usually see up to 20 percent of lean muscle mass of the weight you lost coming from lean muscle mass loss and 80 percent or 85 percent as you say, I'm not coming from body fat loss. But with the ozepic drugs, they're seeing as high as 40 percent coming from lean muscle mass, which is obviously concerning.
所以，我不知道你们有没有看到我发的阿诺德·施瓦辛格与霍华德·斯特恩谈话的片段，他说的是美国人过去对努力工作非常感兴趣。我不知道为什么这样不好，但是你早上5点起床努力工作，不断提升自己的强大。对，这就是其中的关键。你不需要做一个懒散的人，看着我，我变软了。 谢谢。等一下，你听了那个片段吗？他说的就是你说的这样。你确切地说。我就是这么认为。我就是在这里听到的。你是说，这都是关于辛勤工作吗？就是辛勤工作。这就是我在书里说的，你要拼命工作。这是一个捷径吗？是什么建立了这个国家？你认为我是怎么去火星的？是那些退缩的人吗？这是一个伟大的国家。不，这个国家是由那些早上5点起床，奋斗、奋战，拼尽全力的男人和女人打造的。这是他对于Osempek的回应。 是的，不要求快求便利。我们基本上正在创造一个价值数十亿美元的药物体系，人们必须依靠它来保持健康。我们真的知道服用奥塞纳泊的长期效果吗？这些药物已经存在了很长时间了。所以有各种副作用，但是从长远来看，我们是否破坏了我们的健康？这似乎是一种相对安全的药物，并且人们认为它是物有所值的，不管风险如何。 那么有什么好处呢？你能减去40%的重量，对吧？对，大约减去16%的体重。对，那就是原因。是的。他们会说最多减去20%。如果你减肥的话，你通常会看到最多20%的瘦肌肉重量和80%或85%的脂肪重量减少。但是使用奥塞纳泊类药物，他们看到了最高达40%的瘦肌肉减少，这显然令人担忧。

I just made an adjustment. Everybody knows I lost like 40 pounds or so or talked to me for more than five minutes. You know, I have because I'll tell you. The first 20 was just fasting and doing keto. And then when this drug came out, I tried it. I tried ozepic and then I did wagovian. Okay, but I'm going to give you some. I didn't gain it back. I gain back about four or five pounds and I also increased protein in the morning and I do a lot of walking. Okay. So let me give you this map and tell me if it maps to what you have felt or not. So if 250 pounds, let's just say you lose 16 percent of your body weight. That's 40 pounds. Okay. So you get to 190. I was right to 210. And of that, you lose 16 pounds of muscle. Is that what you saw or did you see something less than that? No, much less muscle because I use weights and I do a lot of walking and I eat a ton of protein. Right. So you're doing the exercise. I'm not doing the hard correct size. But I do exercise and you have to do exercise and the challenge, J Cal, is that the vast majority of people that go on the drugs, by the way, I'm not saying the drugs shouldn't be adopted. I think that there's extraordinary benefit, health benefit to the majority of people that are on these drugs, but the downside is that if you're not exercising, you are going to lose muscle mass. And then obviously there is the fact that you're now hooked on this thing. If you're not going to figure out ways to change behavior. I cycled off of them two or three times and had very minor weight gain back three, four, five pounds, but I deliberately changed my relationship with food portion size and I work out now. And what I found was as I lost weight, my interest and the joy I got out of working out dramatically increased. So running, walking, skiing, everything got easier and I just got more into it. So I like working out again now that I'm 40 hot pounds, 42 pounds off my peak weight. I think it's an amazing wonder drive.
我刚刚做了一些调整。每个人都知道我减了大约40磅，或者和我聊了超过五分钟。你知道的，我会告诉你的。前面的20磅是通过禁食和进行生酮饮食来减的。然后当这种药出来时，我尝试了一下。我试了 ozepic 然后又试了 wagovian。好了，但是我要告诉你一些事情。我没有重新增加体重。我重新增加了大约四五磅，而且早上我还增加了蛋白质摄入量，我也经常散步。好了。 所以让我给你这个图表，告诉我它是否和你的感受一致。假设体重是250磅，假设你减去了身体重量的16%。那就是40磅。好。那你就会达到190磅。我是从210磅开始的。在这个过程中，你会失去16磅的肌肉。这是你看到的情况吗？还是比这个数字少一些？不，比这个数字少多了，因为我使用器械锻炼并且经常散步，还吃了大量的蛋白质。对，你在运动。我不是进行剧烈的锻炼，但是我确实在运动，并且你必须进行运动。问题是，大部分使用这些药物的人很少去锻炼。顺便说一句，我并不是说不应该使用这些药物，我认为这些药物对于绝大多数使用者来说有非常好的健康益处，但是缺点是如果你不锻炼，你会失去肌肉质量。而且显然，你现在对这个药物有了依赖性。如果你不想改变行为方式，那就必须找到方法。我已经断断续续地停药两三次，体重只稍微增加了三四五磅，但是我刻意改变了我与食物分量的关系，现在我也开始锻炼。我发现随着体重的减轻，我对运动的兴趣和快乐感大幅增加。所以跑步、散步、滑雪，一切都变得更容易，而我也对此更加热衷了。所以现在我喜欢锻炼，因为我已经减掉了40多磅，达到了一个惊人的奇迹。

But you have some really points on this, like a take on this. Like you think that these things are over hype right now and we're just in the middle of a hype cycle or what's your key takeaway?
但是你对此有一些很有见地的观点，就像这样的看法。你认为这些事情现在被过分炒作了，我们只是处在一个炒作周期的中间，你认为这其中的主要教训是什么？

My key takeaway is that for many people from a health perspective, I think that it could be a really great solution. I think that these triple agonists that are coming out are going to be probably even more effective than these double agonists that we have right now.
我的主要收获是，从健康角度来看，我认为这可能是一个非常好的解决方案。我认为即将推出的这些三重激动剂可能会比现在的双重激动剂更有效。

Yeah. I don't understand. Is that Mungaro is the triple? Mungaro is the triple agonist. Yeah. People who told Mungaro told me it is unbelievable how not hungry you are. Yeah, it's super fast too. Super fast.
是的，我不明白。蒙加罗是三重剂吗？蒙加罗是三重激动剂。是的，告诉我蒙加罗的人告诉我，你不会感到饥饿，这一点令人难以置信。而且，效果超级快速。超级快速。

Just want to see, for example, when you get older in your 60s and 70s, one of the biggest risks you take on and in your 80s is actually musculoskeletal and falls and things like that. And one of the best preventative measures for that is muscle mass.
只是想看看，比如说，当你六七十岁时，你在八十岁时可能会面临的最大风险之一就是肌肉骨骼问题和跌倒等事故。而最好的预防措施之一就是保持肌肉质量。

And so you get into this weird catch 22 of you replace one issue with another. So longitudinally, if you use it for a long time, I'm concerned about that. I do think that these GLP ones, if when we look back on it, will probably be like statins. And in as much as when statins first came on the market, it was a wonder drug. And we were all teetering towards heart disease and heart attacks and all of this stuff. And then once people got on these statins, I think there was a very meaningful impact to the percentage of people that suffered heart disease and cardiac issues. But heart disease still continues to grow.
因此，你陷入了一种奇怪的两难境地，你用一个问题换来了另一个问题。所以从长远来看，如果你长时间使用，我会担心这个问题。我认为这些GLP（药物）大概会像他汀类药物一样。就像当他汀类药物第一次上市时，它是一种神奇的药物。我们都面临着心脏疾病和心脏病发作等问题。然而，一旦人们使用了这些他汀类药物，我认为罹患心脏疾病和心血管问题的人数百分比有了非常显著的改善。但是心脏疾病的发病率仍在继续增长。

And you would say to yourself, well, how is this possible? Because statins are effectively free. They're generic. They're widely available. And today, right now, because of the lack of supply, the emergency FDA order around these semigluetides allows you to make generics right now. So the cost of those are not really a thousand bucks a month, but can be as cheap as a few hundred. So you're getting this widespread adoption and usage.
然后你会对自己说，这怎么可能呢？因为他汀类药物是有效而且免费的。它们是非专利药品，广泛可得。而且现在，由于供应不足，紧急美国食品药品监督管理局的命令允许你立即生产这些类似的药物。所以它们的成本实际上不是每月一千美元，而是可以便宜到几百美元。因此，这种药物被广泛采用和使用。

I think the open question for me is, if human history is a guide, we're going to replace this issue with a different kind of issue. Because unfortunately, maybe people take it and then they physiologically adapt and then they just continue to eat the same or more. Because they think, wow, this is a get out of jail free card for me. And maybe they overpower that satiety, that that GLP one is supposed to give you. I don't know.
在我看来，一个尚未解决的问题是，如果以人类历史为依据，我们可能会将这个问题替换为另一个问题。不幸的是，也许人们会接受它并在生理上适应，然后继续摄入相同或更多的食物。因为他们认为，哇，这对我来说就像是一个可以逃脱惩罚的卡片。也许他们会抵挡那种应该给你带来饱腹感的胃腺激素1（GLP-1）。我不知道。

I find it from a sort of public societal health perspective, really interesting. From an economic market perspective, I think that these things are priced to perfection. It's kind of like Nvidia, which is like, everything's got to go right. Everything people are assuming everything is going to work. It's a tough point in the cycle to be a buyer, I think, as an economic actor.
我从一种公共社会健康的角度来看，发现这真的很有意思。从经济市场的角度来看，我认为这些东西的定价已经非常完美了。就像是英伟达一样，一切都必须顺利进行，人们假设一切都会顺利实施。作为一个经济行动者来说，我认为现在是一个购买者的困难时期。

But as a person is a trade, that seems like a hard trade to make. And just to give even some more color to it, no more nor disk announced that it was hawing.
作为一个交易，这似乎是一个难以做出的抉择。而为了增添更多的情节，没有人或者公司公布了他们正在搏击这个难题。

So Zempik, can you disease trial early? Well, Nick showed that because it was so conclusive. Yeah, I mean, if you look at that sparked a $3.6 billion selloff in shares of dialysis providers. I mean, remember over 40% of Americans are clinically obese. It's a sorry, almost 60% now. It's an extraordinary health epidemic in the United States. And if this drug can have this sort of an effect, it can reduce costs across the healthcare system.
所以，Zempik，你能尽早进行疾病试验吗？嗯，Nick表明这个因为结果非常确凿。是的，我的意思是，如果你看看这引发了肾透析供应商股票市值下跌了36亿美元。我是说，记住超过40%的美国人临床上都超重。现在几乎是60%了。这是美国一个非常严重的健康流行病。如果这种药物能产生这样的效果，它将能够降低整个医疗保健系统的成本。

So there is still a, I mean, Jamov's point out, it's the key to the right number. This affects cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease. But does an average 16% weight loss reduction actually get people from obesity to unobesity? Or are they still obese?
所以，还有一个，我的意思是，Jamov指出，这是正确数字的关键。这会影响心血管疾病、糖尿病、肾脏疾病和肝脏疾病。但是，平均减重16%是否能使肥胖者变为非肥胖者？还是他们仍然肥胖？

The obesity trial seemed to, I mean, remember, you have to get FDA approval for a particular. Yeah, so this is what Jason was mentioning. So this is a basket that Morgan Stanley created, which was essentially starting at the beginning of the year when the hype was really starting to get out of control. Morgan Stanley created a basket of the GLP1 winners and a basket of the GLP1 potentially disrupted healthcare stocks. So you could trade them off against each other. And this just shows how it's performed, which is just the blockbuster trade in the last 10 months. So if you went long, the GLP1 winners in short, these potentially disrupted, it's, I mean, I've never seen a spread trade pay off like this in such a short period of time. 80% a year. Unless of you. Unbelievable. I'm in the nature of creating.
肥胖研究似乎，我是说，记住，你需要获得FDA的批准。是的，这就是Jason提到的。所以这是摩根斯坦利创建的一个篮子，基本上是从年初开始，当时炒作真的开始失控了。摩根斯坦利创建了一个包括GLP1赢家和潜在受到干扰的医疗保健股票在内的篮子。所以你可以相互对冲交易。这只是展示了它的表现，过去10个月里的爆款交易情况。所以如果你在做多GLP1赢家的同时做空这些潜在受干扰的股票，这个交易简直是我从来没有见过的在如此短的时间内有如此大的回报。年度回报率80%。你们之中有人不敢相信吧。不可思议。我就是创造的本质。

But Jamov, would you take the other side of this trade right now or like, how do you. I would. I would. I would. You want to be. And the reason is because of two practical factors. One is that when a market gets this exaggerated, what you're pricing in is essentially like a panacea solution. And those tend to not really be realistic. And again, I would point to statins as a good example of that. And so there's a part of it, which is just like these trades are so overextended that you can probably be pretty safe on the other side. And then the second part is that I don't think we really understand yet. The other half of the coin, which is, you know, for every one of us that's generally positively inclined around GLP1s who isn't getting enough attention right now, are the doctors who've spending a lot of time researching this stuff who may actually have a perspective on the other side? You know, probably the most prominent one like Bob Blustig. So you have to give that a little bit of time for it to play out because nobody wants to hear the bear case on GLP1s as a drug that people take. So I would just say that it's probably, again, when you see it, an economic trade like this, it's probably okay to be on the other side of it. And then just from a public health perspective, you know, take away from sea.
但是，Jamov，你现在会做出对立交易吗？或者说，你会怎么做呢？我会的。我会的。我会的。你会想要做这个交易。原因是有两个实际因素。首先，当市场过度夸张时，你所定价的基本上是一种包治百病的解决方案。而这种解决方案往往不太现实。再举一个好例子就是他汀类药物。所以，其中有一部分是因为这些交易过于夸张，你可能会在对立面上相当安全。然后第二个方面是，我觉得我们还没有真正理解到事物的另一面，也就是，对于GLP1类药物，我们普遍倾向于积极态度的人们并没有得到足够关注的医生们，他们可能真的能够从另一方面提出一些观点。比如，最知名的就是鲍勃·布鲁斯蒂格。所以你必须给这些观点一些时间来发酵，因为没有人想听关于GLP1类药物作为人们所服用药物的负面观点。所以我只是想说，当你看到这样一个经济交易时，站在对立面可能是可以的。而且从公共卫生角度来看，你也可以有自己的看法。

But for a lot of people who are clinically obese, it doesn't seem like the math is such that if you're at a BMI of 30, reducing your weight 16%, I think gets you to like a 26. It doesn't get you under that. I think it's meaningful. I think it's meaningful. No, no, I'm not saying it's not meaningful. I'm saying it doesn't, it, you're still obese.
但对于很多临床肥胖的人来说，似乎并不是这样的数学关系，即使你的BMI（身体质量指数）达到30，减重16%，我认为也只能降至26，而不能达到更低。这并不能使你不再肥胖。我认为这是有意义的，不，不，我不是说没有意义，我是说虽然有意义，但你仍然是肥胖。

Yeah, I think the key thing, and I don't want to give medical advice, but I think you need to do this holistically. So you got to keep your diet and you got to keep working out in mind when you do it. And that should be fairly obvious. And those are always good things to do is to make sure you're right.
是的，我认为关键是你需要整体地来考虑，我不想给医疗建议，但我认为你在进行这个过程中需要同时注意饮食和锻炼。这一点应该相当明显。确保你的饮食和锻炼都做得正确，这总是一件好事。

Do you try to take it your whole life in sports, J-Cal? Or how do you view it? No, I'm five pounds from my lowest weight as an adult and the weight I used to be when I ran marathons. And so my plan is to come off of it by the end of this year. And then I had taken like six months off twice doing this. So I did it like in little intentional in sports. In sports. In sports, yeah. Just to get where I want it to be. And this last five pounds. What is your, do you have a sense of if your behavior changes when you're on and you're off? Do you think you're fine?
你有试图一直保持自己在运动方面的状态吗，J-Cal？或者你是怎么看待这个问题的？不，我离成年时体重的最低点只有五磅，也是我跑马拉松时的体重。所以我的计划是在今年年底之前减掉这些体重。而且在此之前我已经有两次间隔了六个月来实施这个计划。就是为了在运动中意识到自己想要达到的目标。就是运动方面。在运动方面，是的。只是为了达到我理想状态。这最后的五磅体重。你有没有意识到自己在进行和不进行运动时行为上的变化吗？你认为自己还好吗？

Yeah, I do feel more hungry, but then I remember how bad I felt when I was overweight. And then I just weigh myself every day. And if I see myself get above a certain number, I consider that like a red alert. And I just, you know, either start fasting, working out or just eating super healthy. So it's just the discipline of weighing myself every day that I've gotten into. And just understanding, hey, you know, if I make two or three bad decisions, you're not going to make two or three bad decisions when you're on these drugs in my experience because you feel so bloated and so painful when you overeat that you don't want to do it. So it's really, it's really like it hurts. You feel distended.
是的，我确实感觉更饿了，但然后我就想起当我超重时感觉有多糟糕。然后我每天都会称体重。如果我看到自己的体重超过一个特定的数字，我就会把它看作是一个红色警报。然后我就会开始禁食、锻炼或者只是吃超级健康的食物。所以我现在每天称体重的习惯就是自律的一种表现。而且明白，嘿，你知道吗，在我个人的经验中，如果你做出两三个错误的决定，你不会在服用这些药物时再犯错两三次，因为过度进食让你感到如此腹胀和疼痛，你不想这么做。所以真的，真的很痛苦。你会感到腹胀。

And you know, there are reports and it did happen to me twice over two or three years of doing this. That if you take it and you eat too much, you could get sick and actually vomit. So some people just don't have the stomach for it. I think a lot of people just tap out it and make their stomachs feel too distended or gnarly and that's why the dosage actually really matters. They have dosages that are like a very wide range, maybe 10x. And so the dosage, getting that right, working with your doctor is key. But yeah, I'm just, I'm excited to get off of it because I want to really start sincerely weightlifting. So I'm getting a personal trainer to do like weightlifting twice a week and get really into that next because you can't do hardcore intense working out with us because you're just lower calorie. But I think it's a miracle drug and I'm excited about it.
你知道，有报道说这种情况确实发生在我身上，我在这个领域已经做了两三年，总共发生了两次。如果你吃得太多，可能会导致你生病，甚至呕吐。所以有些人根本受不了这种情况。我认为很多人都会放弃，因为他们的胃容易感到不舒服或者恶心，这也是为什么剂量非常重要的原因。剂量的范围非常广，可以有10倍的差距。所以要正确确定剂量，与医生合作非常重要。但是，是的，我很兴奋能停药，因为我真的想开始专注于举重。所以我找了个私人教练，每周进行两次举重训练，真正深入地投入其中，因为你不能在用这种药的情况下进行强度非常高的运动，因为你摄入的卡路里比较低。但是我认为这是一种神奇的药物，我对此感到兴奋。

The one question I have for you on the spread trade before we end, Jamath. Does the nature of making those indexes and giving people the ability to put the trade on, exacerbate the trade because then I saw everybody was tweeting about this over the last week. Does the nature of an index being made impact the action box? You know, Morgan Stanley is particularly good at these basket creations and they tend to make it for their biggest hedge fund clients and their richest family. So it tends to be pretty isolated. They give an edge to a few folks. So these things are not broadly published. And so I doubt it in the end. But so they come up with this idea. How many names are in each index? It all just depends. And they're very smart about being able to create these on the fly based on what themes they're seeing. And then like I said, they share them with their best hedge fund clients and their and their biggest families. They don't they don't trade. They don't share them with us. I got it.
在我们结束之前，Jamath，我对于互换交易有一个问题要问你。制作这些指数，并为人们提供进行交易的能力的性质，是否加剧了交易的扩大？因为在上周，我看到每个人都在关于此事发推文。指数的制作是否影响了交易行为？你知道，摩根士丹利在这些资产篮子构建方面特别擅长，它们通常为它们最大的对冲基金客户和最富有的家族进行这样的制造。所以这种交易往往相对独特。它们为一些人提供了优势。所以这些事情并不被广泛公开。所以我最后还是有疑问。但是他们提出了这个想法。每个指数中有多少个名字？这完全取决于情况。他们非常聪明，能够根据他们看到的主题即时创建它们。然后，就像我说的，他们与他们最好的对冲基金客户和最大的家族分享这些指数。他们不与我们分享。我明白了。

Jason, when did I told you like at the end of all of that, at the end of that graph, everybody put the trade on and got the win. No, let's get you. But so they didn't actually share it with me in January. I wish they did.
杰森，在那一切结束的时候，也就是那个图表的末尾，大家都进行了交易并获得了胜利。不过，我们得搞搞明白你的情况。但是，他们实际上在一月份并没有与我分享。我真希望他们当时这样做了。

All right. Listen, we got to wrap up. Great show boys and we're praying for peace and the return of the hostages for the Sultan of Science, the dictator and the rain man. Yeah, David Sachs. I am the realest-graced mom. I'm going to see you at episode 151. Enjoy the 150 fan meetups this week. And anybody who's known them.
好的。听着，我们得结束了。男孩们，节目棒极了，我们祈祷和平，祈祷科学苏丹、独裁者和下雨男子能够平安回来。是的，大卫·萨克斯。我是最真实有幸的母亲。下一集我会在第151集见到你们。这周享受150次粉丝聚会。还有任何了解他们的人。

Love you guys. Love you. That's it. It's fun. We'll let your winners ride. Rain man, David Sachs. And it's said we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you guys. I just ween up. Can't fly. Going all the way. We're trying.
我爱你们。爱你们。就是这样。很有趣。我们会让你们的胜利继续下去。雨人，大卫·萨克斯。据说我们将其开源给粉丝，他们对此疯狂追随。爱你们。我正在努力。不能飞行。奋力向前。我们正在努力尝试。

What? What? Your winner is right. Besties are gone. I don't think that's my dog taking a picture. Drive away. We're in it all. Oh man. My husband, I have to ask her to meet me at places. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all- It's like this like sexual tension that we just need to release. I'm out. What? You're the beat. What? You're the beat. You're the beat. Beat. What? We need to get merges. Besties are gone. I'm going all the way up. I'm going all the way up.
什么？什么？你赢了。好朋友们都走了。我不认为那是我的狗在拍照。开车离开。我们都在其中。哦天啊。我丈夫，我得叫她和我在某些地方见面。我们应该找个房间，举办一次巨大的派对，因为他们都……就好像有性紧张感需要释放一样。我走了。什么？你是节拍。什么？你是节拍。你是节拍。节拍。什么？我们需要合并。好朋友都走了。我要一路上升。我会一路上升。