E164: Zuck’s Senate apology, Elon's comp package voided, crony capitalism, Reddit IPO, drone attack
发布时间 2024-02-02 20:35:23 来源
摘要
(0:00) Bestie intros! The guys try the Apple Vision Pro (8:24) Zuckerberg apologizes to parents in hearing, Section 230 under fire ...
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
All right, everybody. Welcome back to your favorite podcast, the all in podcast. It's episode one 64. I'm down here in Miami with me again. Of course, the dictator chairman himself, probably hopatia and the rain man. Yeah, burn baby, David sacks. Unfortunately, we had a little bit of a chat. Well, it's this week. We don't know where Friedberg is. He's somewhere lost in his Apple vision pros, but he'll be back next week. As you guys know, I'm incredibly generous with my friends. So I sent all the besties, the Apple Pro goggles.
大家好！欢迎回到您最喜爱的播客节目《全力以赴播客》。这是第164集。我现在在迈阿密，当然和我在一起的还有独裁主席本人，可能是希腊神殿（Mr. Hopatia）和“雨人”戴维·萨克斯（David Sacks）。不幸的是，我们这周无法找到弗里德伯格（Friedberg），他在他的苹果Pro视觉设备中迷路了，但下周他会回来。正如大家所知，我对我的朋友们非常慷慨，所以我送给了所有最亲密的朋友苹果Pro眼镜。
And so these Apple Pro goggles are amazing. But you bought me a pair of the Apple Pro. Yeah. We talked about this. Yeah. You guys actually, you were using them. You just forgot. But Friedberg's been using them. Nobody can find Friedberg right now, because apparently he went to your anus. I recorded in all of these sacks. What's happening inside each of our Apple goggles, a vision pro. Yeah. And so but yeah, from out here in the yard, we actually took a picture. I had not take a picture of you wearing them.
这款苹果Pro眼镜真是太棒了。但是你给我买了一副苹果Pro眼镜。是的，我们谈过这个了。是的，你们实际上之前都用过，只是忘记了而已。但是弗里德伯格一直在用。现在没有人能找到弗里德伯格，因为他显然去了你的屁股。我在这些眼镜里录制了所有的袋泡情况。我们的Apple眼镜里正在发生什么事，一个专业视觉的宝藏。是的，这样但是是的，在院子里，我们真的拍了一张照片。照片上没有拍到你戴着它们的样子。
Do you want to have a sec? Do you want to see what Chamoc was doing in his goggles? Yeah, let's see. I've recorded it. Oh, yeah. Look at that. See, he imagined that he did leg day. Look at that. We could let day. He's reveling. He's still reveling in that thirst trap that he posted. I know, but you see those legs? The Apple Vision Pro. Tim Cook. Can I? Sorry. Can I say that? Can I say something funny about this, which is that my legs are actually darker than my torso and my upper body? It's the weirdest thing. And so you have it in reverse, but it is true that my my legs are a different shade than my my trunk and my arms and my body.
你想多等一会吗？你想看看Chamoc在他的护目镜里在做什么吗？是的，让我们看看。我录了下来。噢，看那个。你看，他想象自己进行了腿部锻炼。看那个，我们可以进行腿部锻炼。他陶醉其中。他仍然陶醉在他发布的渴望夺人心魄的陷阱里。我知道，但你看到那些腿了吗？苹果 Vision Pro。蒂姆·库克。我可以说吗？对不起。我可以说一件有趣的事吗，就是我的腿实际上比我的躯干和上半身更黑？这真是件奇怪的事。所以你反过来了，但我的腿和我的躯干、手臂和身体的颜色确实不同。
Okay. Well, here's Sacks. By the way, Sacks, you know, he loves his goggles. Yeah. It's about the many interests of seeing what Sacks was doing with his goggles. Oh my God. I can't imagine. There it is. Sacks was speed running. He was doing the speed run on DJ. Absolutely getting in there. That's saving private Ryan, right? Yeah. That's you. That's you. You were speed running, saving private Ryan. There. Oh, I got them too. Yes. But I didn't record myself. I didn't record myself. I maybe nicked it. Oh, I was in there. Oh, look. What am I doing? Oh, I'm drinking them. You brought me out. Rain man, David Sacks.
好吧。嗯，这是Sacks。顺便说一下，Sacks，你知道吗，他非常喜欢他的护目镜。是的。这是关于看到Sacks用他的护目镜做了很多有趣的事情。天哪。我无法想象。就是这样。Sacks在进行速通游戏。他正在DJ游戏里进行速通。绝对非常棒。那就是《拯救大兵瑞恩》，对吧？是的。那就是你。那就是你。你正在进行《拯救大兵瑞恩》的速通。在那儿。哦，我也有得到他们。是的。但是我没有录下来。我可能只是快速拍了一下。哦，我在其中。看，我在做什么？哦，我在喝它们。你带我出来了。雨人，大卫·Sacks。
And they've just got the reason. Wait, you're telling me that they didn't have the third or fourth investor in Uber up, but ringing the bell with them at the original moment? I could tell you the backstory. I was invited by TK to come to the ring of the bell. TK is disinvited. So he was there on the floor. It was very awkward. And then they didn't have him go up and ring the bell or be even there when Dara rang the bell. It was because it was controversial. They didn't. They banned him. It was really, it was really sad. It was super sad. But anyway, everybody, I hope you're enjoying your there or not. I didn't go because he was like, we're going to have a party, but we're not going to be able to ring the bell. And it was just all like very. Did you go to the party? I didn't. I should have regret not going. But it was unclear if there was even going to be a party or TK was going to go because of all the drama. I don't know if you remember on CNBC, they were like TK is in the building, but he's not on the thing. And then it became a big brew, haha. But yes, I miss my window.
然后他们找到了理由。等等，你告诉我他们在Uber获得第三或第四个投资者的时候，并没有与他们一起敲响那刻钟，而是在最初的时刻敲响的吗？我可以告诉你背后的故事。我被TK邀请去敲响那刻钟。TK被取消邀请了。因此他当时在那个地方。情况非常尴尬。然后他们没有让他上去敲响钟声，甚至在Dara敲响钟声的时候都没有让他在场。因为这是有争议的。他们禁止了他。这真的，真的很伤心。非常伤心。不过，无论如何，大家，希望你们在那儿玩得开心或者不开心。我没有去，因为他说我们要办派对，但是我们没法敲响钟声。然后一切都变得很......你去参加派对了吗？我没有去。我后悔没有去。但是由于所有的戏剧性事件，不知道派对是否会举行，以及TK是否会去，这一切都不确定。我不知道你是否还记得CNBC报道，他们说TK在楼里，但是没有在活动上。然后它演变成了一场大的风波。但是，是的，我错过了机会。
I mean, if you hadn't known that this was going to be the big exit in your life, really the only one, then you would have made every effort to attend everything, right? Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, you're still riding on that yammer and paypal. He got it. I was talking to somebody about this the other day. Most people's careers, you have like, you know, it's not like a smooth up to upward trajectory. There's like maybe a few pops that you get. You're lucky actually, if you get a few, because most people only have one or maybe two. Yes. It's like a power law. It's like anything else in venture, right? Absolutely. Like, I'm sure if you think back on like the big outcomes in your life, it's not like there's one every year and like some sort of smooth gradient. It's basically there's like one, two or three over the course of your entire career that you remember. Right. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I mean, it's good. It's good to consider that because you have to enjoy every sandwich. You have to enjoy every day what you're doing because those pops are out of your control. You don't know when they're going to happen, how they're going to manifest. So, but you guys didn't get these. You didn't get the goggles, but these goggles came out this week. I don't know if you saw it.
我的意思是，如果你不知道这将是你生命中的重大转折点，实际上是唯一的一个，那么你肯定会尽一切努力去参加每一个活动，对吧？绝对。绝对。是的。我的意思是，你现在还在依赖那个yammer和paypal呢。他懂了。我前几天和某个人谈起这个问题。大多数人的职业生涯不是一帆风顺的上升轨迹。可能只有几次突破才能得到机会。如果你能得到几次，你算是幸运的，因为大多数人只有一次，或者也许只有两次。是的。这就像一种权力法则。就像风投业务中的其他事物一样，对吧？绝对。如果你回想一下你生活中的重大成果，不可能每年都有一个，而且像某种平滑的梯度一样发生。事实上，在你整个职业生涯中，你只会记得有一两次重要的成就。对。是的，绝对。这很重要。你必须享受每一顿三明治。你必须享受每一天你所做的事情，因为突破是无法控制的。你不知道它们何时会发生，它们会以何种方式显现。所以，但是你们没有得到这些。你们没有得到这些护目镜，但是这周它们发布了。你们看见了吗？
What I will say is that the poker game, three of the guys, we're talking about these goggles. Sammy woke up at five in the morning on the first day. He got them. And then Kuhn and Roble were telling me that they just like bought them randomly in the next couple of days. And it was. So those are civilians. There was no like waiting in line. They were able to just order them is what they do. Yes. But they're civilians.
我要说的是，在扑克游戏中，我们三个人在谈论这些护目镜。山姆在第一天早上五点醒来，拿到了护目镜。然后库恩和罗布尔告诉我，他们在接下来的几天随机购买了它们。所以他们是普通人。没有排队等候的情况。他们可以直接订购。是的，但他们是普通人。
So, just to be clear, like in Silicon Valley, we're kind of like, eh, whatever, you know, we've played with Oculus for so long, but now these are out and there's a bunch of demos going around. This one, I thought was interesting. I don't know if you saw this, but watching in a basketball game, it actually is quite compelling to have all the stats on the screen with you and you can kind of move them around. I maybe could see myself doing this. I don't know. Do you think you would do this watching a game? Maybe.
所以，只是为了明确起见，就像在硅谷一样，我们是那种，嗯，无所谓的，你知道的，我们已经玩了那么久的Oculus了，但现在这些已经出来了，周围有很多演示。我觉得这个有趣。我不知道你有没有看到，但在看篮球比赛时，屏幕上有所有的统计数据的确很有吸引力，而且你还可以移动它们。我也许能想象自己这么做。我不知道。你觉得看比赛的时候你会这么做吗？也许吧。
So, are you actually watching the TV through the goggles? Like what is the real world and what part is augmented? Obviously, all the stats are augmented reality. Yeah, this is all is that that's a stream. That's a stream coming into the goggles. Yeah, it's not your TV. So, you know, I think he's just putting it on the TV there, but you could literally be outside on your deck. You could be on an airplane and do this. So, that's like, But you can see through the goggles, right? Is that the idea? It's you can if you want to. I think you can still see through the goggles. Yeah. Is the idea.
所以，你是真的通过护目镜在看电视吗？什么是真实世界，什么是增强部分？很明显，所有的统计数据都是增强现实。是的，这就是一个流媒体。这是一个进入护目镜的流媒体。是的，它不是你的电视。所以，我想他只是把它放在电视上，但你可以在户外的露台上，或者在飞机上进行这项操作。所以，这就是...但你可以透过护目镜看到东西，对吗？这是设想吗？如果你愿意，你是可以看到护目镜之外的东西的。是的，这就是设想。
Yeah. You know, you could you can see the fact that you live in a tattered apartment without a girlfriend dressed poorly. You could see the dishes in your sink. You could see the cupboard being bare. You could see the spoiled milk in your refrigerator. Your half used bong that you use to soothe yourself to sleep at night. Whatever all of these 20 and 30 year olds do to cope, you'll see all of that while still being in an immersive environment. It's amazing. I mean, it is so dystopian. I just think like, if you take out your phone, your spouse is like, what are you doing on your phone? Can you imagine the audacity of being with your spouse or your family and be like, Hey, guys, I'll be right back and you put the goggles on to watch the next game with the Warriors. I mean, I think that's a snap divorce. I don't know.
没错。你知道，你可以看到自己住在一个破旧公寓里，没有女朋友，穿得破破烂烂的事实。你可以看到水槽里堆满了脏碗。你可以看到橱柜是空的。你可以看到冰箱里变质的牛奶。你还可以看到你半数使用的用来帮助你入睡的水烟筒。不管这些20多岁和30多岁的人们如何应对，你都会在沉浸式环境中看到所有这些。真是令人惊叹。我是说，这太反乌托邦了。我只是觉得，如果你拿出手机，你的配偶会问你在手机上干什么？你能想象和你的配偶或家人在一起时，突然说：“嘿，伙计们，我马上回来”，然后戴上护目镜看下一场勇士队的比赛。我觉得那就是婚姻瞬间破裂的原因。我不知道。
You said it very well about the the Oculus one, which is you had a turner phrase, which I really like, but basically it's like, you were very quick to try it. And then there was like a period and then you lost interest. I think that's just going to be the key thing with this. And the fact that it costs $3,500, they have to get the price down fast enough for average folks to want and be able to buy it, right? Yeah, I call this experience the try. Oh my, goodbye. You try it. You're like, Oh my God, this is incredible. And then you're like, we put it in your drawer. You never use it again. Because there's not an application. It's really a proof of concept.
关于Oculus One，你说得很好，你有一个很有趣的说法，我非常喜欢，但基本上就是这样，你很快就尝试了它。然后过了一段时间，你失去了兴趣。我认为这将是关键问题。而且它的售价是3500美元，他们必须尽快降低价格，让普通人愿意并且能够购买，对吧？是的，我把这种体验称为试用。哦天啊，再见。你尝试了它，觉得太不可思议了，然后你把它放进抽屉里，再也不用了。因为没有应用程序。它真的只是一个概念验证。
Look, I think it's a great thing for innovation that they're starting with this. You know, like you said, expensive headset that maybe is not that ergonomic, but eventually it'll come down and the form factor will be glasses or sunglasses. Facebook, I don't know if it the products out yet, but do you see their product where the Ray band has? Yeah, it has the built into it. And you can ask your questions and it will do computer vision and give you answers based on what it's seeing. It was a phenomenal demo. I don't know if that's actually real yet, but do you see that demo? Yeah, these are the Facebook Ray band glasses. And I do think these are meta smart glasses. They work particularly while taking pictures and sharing them on Instagram. So they're kind of single function, you know, how Zuckerberg is. He he cribbed what Evan Spiegel did a couple years ago with the Snapchat. Right. But he put out a demo that was a little different. The demo was like he was in his closet. He was wearing this and he had picked out a shirt or something and that's like, give me, you know, tell me what I should match this with.
看，我认为这对创新来说是一件很棒的事情。就像你说的，这个昂贵的头盔可能并不那么人性化，但最终它会变小，并且形态会像眼镜或太阳镜。Facebook，我不知道他们的产品是否已经推出了，但你有没有看到他们的那款雷朋眼镜？是的，它内置了功能。你可以问问题，它会进行计算机视觉，并根据所看到的内容给你答案。那次演示非常了不起。我不知道那个演示是否实际存在，但你看到过那个演示吗？是的，这些就是Facebook的雷朋眼镜。我认为这些是元智能眼镜。他们在拍照和在Instagram上分享照片时非常有效。所以它们是有点单一功能的，你知道马克·扎克伯格是怎样的人吧。他抄袭了几年前Evan Spiegel做的Snapchat。没错。但他发布的演示有些不同。演示中，他在他的衣柜里，戴着这个眼镜，挑选出了一件衬衫之类的东西，然后说“告诉我该和这个搭配什么”。
Yeah, what goes with a gray shirt that I've won for 14 years. Did you guys see this thing where they all had to testify in front of the Senate? Yeah. Remind us. I guess we'll just jump right to that. It was like a public flog. Yeah. Once again, a public, public, public, we'll just jump here real quick since we didn't want to go too deep on that one.
是的，我已经穿了14年的灰色衬衫，想知道搭配什么好。你们有看到他们之前必须在参议院作证的事情吗？是的，给我们回忆一下。我猜我们直接谈谈那个吧。那真像是一次公开的责骂。是的。再一次，公开的、公开的、公开的，我们只是快速地跳过去，因为我们不想太深入探讨那个。
But Josh Holly made a turn around and apologize to people in the audience. It was really intense. Yeah. So this is the name of this hearing was BigTack, an online child sexual exploitation crisis. Zuckerberg, he was questioned along with the CEO of TikTok, DiscordX and Snap. But obviously this is all around kids online safety and also section 230, which I think these senators are, this is one of the few bipartisan moments, I think. They're honing in on it. Yeah, they realized this is kind of like a wedding. They're going to take a run at this. They're taking a run at it for sure. They realized it's a winning ticket. Let's just play the clip and then I'll get your thoughts, Sacks, and Chima.
乔希·霍利（Josh Holly）转了个弯，向观众道歉。这真的很激烈。是的。所以这次听证会的名字叫BigTack，是关于在线儿童性剥削危机的。扎克伯格和TikTok、DiscordX和Snap的首席执行官一起受到了质询。但显然，这都是关于儿童在线安全和第230条的问题，我觉得这些参议员是在这个问题上少有的两党合作时刻。他们正在集中注意力。是的，他们意识到这就像一个婚礼。他们要攻击这个问题。他们肯定会从中受益。我们先播放片段，然后我想听听你们的想法，Sacks和Chima。
Let me ask you this. There's families of victims here today. Have you apologized to the victims? Would you like to do so now? Well, they're here. You're on national television. Would you like now to apologize to the victims who have been harmed by your products? Show them the pictures. Would you like to apologize for what you've done to these good people? In part, everything that you've all done through, terrible. No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered. And this is why we invest so much and are going to continue doing industry-leading efforts to make sure that no one has to go through the types of things that your families have had to suffer.
让我问你这个问题。今天在这里有受害者的家属。你向受害者道过歉了吗？你现在想要道歉吗？嗯，他们在这里。你正在全国电视台上。你现在想要向那些被你的产品伤害的受害者道歉吗？给他们看一下照片。你想要为你对这些善良人们所做的事情道歉吗？你们所经历的一切都是糟糕的。没有人应该经历你们的家庭所遭受的事情。这就是为什么我们投入如此巨大的力量，并将继续进行行业领先的努力，确保没有人需要经历你们的家庭所遭受的事情的原因。
Sacks, these are a powerful moment. And for Zuckerberg to get up and actually face the parents, he turned around, he faces the president, very dramatic moment. And he apologized. Ned, you respect him for doing that. And you think that was like a powerful moment as well? And where does this all go?
萨克斯，这是一个有力的时刻。扎克伯格站起来实际面对父母，他转身面对总统，非常戏剧化的时刻。而且他道了歉。内德，你钦佩他这样做。你也认为这是一个有力的时刻吗？这一切会发展到哪里？
This was a Kangaroo Court. I mean, this was basically all theatrics. This is basically a bipartisan moral panic where all these senators are basically grandstanding. And these are the same types of accusations that we've been hearing for years. Remember, this goes back to the whole Francis Hoggins claims where she says that Facebook wasn't doing enough to prevent phrase kinds of online harms. And I think that we're going to regret where this all leads, because where it's going to lead, if they do repeal section 230 is towards greater censorship, all these companies are going to spend even more resources restricting what we can say and hear online, which is not the right direction.
这是一个袋鼠法庭。我的意思是，这基本上都是一出戏剧。这基本上是一个两党共同引发的道德恐慌，所有这些参议员基本上都在摆姿态。而这些指控类型与我们多年来一直听到的一样。还记得，这源于弗朗西斯·霍金斯的指控，她声称Facebook在预防某些在线伤害方面做得不够。我认为我们将会为此后悔，因为如果废除第230节，这将导致更严格的审查制度，所有这些公司将会投入更多资源来限制我们在网上的言论自由，这并不是正确的方向。
Listen, do some harms occur online? Yes. Do I believe that Facebook is taking substantial measures to stop them? Yes. I mean, but edge cases are always going to get through. When you're operating at that kind of scale, there are going to be these edge cases of kids who got harassed or content that shouldn't have getting through. It's just part of the fact that the internet operates at gigantic scale. And these harms have always been out there. I think that these companies do their best to try and stop them. But they're always going to get through. And you can't make every aspect of our society perfectly safe and harm free. Somehow we have this expectation that we can eliminate 100% of every harm that occurs. And I do think that these online companies have been unfairly picked on in a sense. I mean, if you're going to talk about these types of harms, why aren't you targeting the music industry for all their incendiary lyrics that basically encourage all sorts of violent or sexist behavior? Why don't you target the advertising industry for creating unrealistic body image expectations? Why don't you target the Kardashians for setting unrealistic expectations around image? And you could go on down the list. I mean, why don't you target Hollywood for releasing a show like Euphoria, which is a hit? It seems to me that the problem in our culture is not coming from the edge cases is coming from the mainstream entertainment that is fully allowed and is popular and is our hit shows and hit records and hit products. I mean, that's where the toxic pollution is coming from in our culture. So to turn around and now blame the online companies for creating all of this, I think is just anything basically they're being scapegoated. I mean, again, this is a moral panic.
听着，网上发生了一些伤害吗？是的。我相信Facebook正在采取重要措施来阻止它们吗？是的。但是边缘情况总是会发生。当你在如此庞大的规模下运作时，肯定会有那些被骚扰的孩子或不应该通过的内容的边缘情况。这只是因为互联网在巨大的规模上运作的一部分。而这些伤害一直存在。我认为这些公司尽力去阻止它们。但总是会有例外。我们不能让我们社会的每个方面都完全安全和无害。不知怎么的我们有这样的期望，认为我们可以消除100%发生的每一种伤害。我确实觉得这些在线公司在某种程度上被不公平地抨击了。我是说，如果你要谈论这些伤害类型，为什么不针对音乐行业的那些煽动性歌词，它们完全鼓励各种暴力或性别歧视的行为呢？为什么不针对广告业创造了对身材形象的不切实际期望呢？为什么不谴责卡戴珊姐妹会创造对形象的不切实际期望呢？等等。我是说，为什么不将矛头指向好莱坞发行了一部像《欢愉》这样受欢迎的剧集呢？在我看来，我们文化中的问题并不是来自边缘情况，而是来自主流娱乐界，这是完全合法并且很受欢迎的剧集、唱片和产品。我是说，我们文化中有毒的污染就是来自那里。所以现在转过头来归咎于在线公司创造了所有这一切，我认为这只是他们被替罪的一种方式。我是说，这仅仅是一种道德恐慌。
Chamath, you think it's some moral panic or there have been statistics and studies done about what is viral on social media, the algorithms targeting users, the addictive nature of it. You spoke earlier about the addictive nature of just gamification on watches. Social media is a little bit different than music and some of these other things because they have these algorithms to increase watch time and engagement. So I think that's what the other side would say, what do you say? What do you say, Chamath? What do you stand on this?
Chamath，你认为这是一种道德恐慌，还是已有统计数据和研究证明社交媒体上的病毒式传播、针对用户的算法以及其上瘾性质？你之前提到过智能手表上的游戏化性质是具有上瘾性的。与音乐等其他事物不同，社交媒体拥有增加观看时间和参与度的算法。所以，我想这就是其他人可能会说的，你对此有什么看法？Chamath，你怎么说？你对这个问题的立场是什么？
Let me just give a quote out to a couple of things that SAC said, it is true that we've taken turns attacking other forms of media when they were ascending in their popularity. So in the 1990s, if you guys remember politicians and their censorship attempts around gangster rap and NWA and two live crew and certain songs, Al Gore's wife, right? What was her name? Tipper Gore. All right. All right. She's tiring against rap lyrics. What was the NWA song? You know, the police, that whole thing just sent off a huge fear about people potentially David be motivated to kill cops or something, right?
让我引用一些SAC所说的话，正如他所说的，我们总是在媒体形式的崛起时攻击它们。所以在1990年代，如果你们还记得，政治家们试图对抗黑帮说唱音乐、NWA乐队和Two Live Crew乐队的某些歌曲进行审查，还记得阿尔·戈尔的妻子吗？她叫什么来着？蒂珀·戈尔。好的，好的。她反对说唱歌词。那首NWA的歌曲是什么来着？你们知道的，那整个事件引发了人们对潜在的袭击警察的恐惧，对吧？
In the 80s, there was a trial. Judas Priest went on trial because if you played one of their records backwards, supposedly promoted double worshiping. I don't know who's playing records backwards, but if you did, then it promoted double worship. I think a kid committed suicide and say, basically, prosecuted Judas Priest for it. So that's comment number one, which is, this is not new. And the reason why social media is in the cross-seers is because instead of having this really diverse ecosystem of many small players, you have three or four folks. And so it's easier to bring them up on stage and sort of pillory them.
在80年代，发生了一次审判。犹大祭司乐队因为据说如果你把他们的唱片倒放，会宣扬双重崇拜而受到审判。我不知道是谁会反放唱片，但如果你这样做确实会宣扬双重崇拜。我想是一个孩子自杀了，然后基本上因此起诉了犹大祭司乐队。所以这是第一条评论，也就是，这不是什么新鲜事。而社交媒体之所以处于批评的焦点，是因为相比拥有众多小玩家组成的多样化生态系统，现在只有三、四个巨头。所以更容易把他们带上舞台进行公开批评。
Second is I actually thought that Zuck had a lot of moral clarity because it's like, that's a tough position to be in. And the fact that he had the courage to turn around and actually apologize to those people shows he's trying to do the right thing. But the reality is, and Saks is right, if you apply a very, very small error rate to an incredibly large number, so they have a network of three and a half billion people monthly, right, or daily or whatever the thing is, even if you say that there's one tenth of one percent of an error rate, meaning things that are unintended, well, that's three million unintended consequences, right? That's a lot of unintended consequences. And so there's this massive law of large numbers at play. So what do we do, I guess, is the question.
第二点是我当初实际上认为扎克具备很强的道德清晰度，因为这不是一个容易的处境。而他有勇气转身向那些人道歉，表明他有意做正确的事情。但现实情况是，萨克斯是对的，如果你将一个非常小的错误率应用于一个非常大的数字，比如他们每月有三十五亿的用户网络，哪怕你认为错误率是千分之一，也就是意外事件占比，那就是三百万个意外后果，对吧？这是很多的意外后果。所以这里有一个庞大的大数定律在起作用。那么，我想问的是我们该怎么办呢？
And I think that there is enough knowledge that we have to know that the ability for a 35 year old to use certain products today is very different than the ability for a 12 year old to use that same product because of where they are physiologically, right? I think we all know that to be scientifically true on the dimension of many products. And I think what we need to decide as a society is whether software and electronic products fall into that categorization. And if so, what does it mean?
我认为我们有足够的知识需要知道，35岁的人今天使用某种产品的能力与12岁的人使用同样的产品的能力是非常不同的，这是基于他们在生理上的差异，对吧？我认为我们都知道在许多产品领域上，这在科学上是事实。而我们作为社会需要决定的是，软件和电子产品是否归入这种分类。如果是的话，那又意味着什么呢？
So in the case of China, they mandate top down what products can be used and how many hours you can use them for a video game, sure referring to you. Yeah. And David's right, which is that if we go there and we rewrite the law, then there's going to be a different set of unintended consequences. That's going to create, I think, a much poorer business landscape, frankly, to innovate in a bunch of other things. And building on your comments, there's clearly an age at which kids can shouldn't be on these systems and an age where maybe with some guidance, they can, yeah, you wanted to add something to your mouth? Yeah.
所以在中国的情况下，他们自上而下地规定了可以使用哪些产品以及电子游戏的使用时间，特别是指向你。是的，戴维是对的，如果我们去那里修改法律，那么将会产生不同的意料之外的后果。坦率地说，这将在很大程度上破坏创新其他领域的商业环境。在你的评论基础上，很明显有一个年龄段的孩子应该不使用这些系统，还有一个年龄段，也许在一定指导下他们可以使用。是的，你想补充一些内容吗？是的。
And then I think the third thing is around the section 230 thing itself. I think that Saks, I'll give you a slightly different take. I don't think that the section 230 rewrite is going to be broad and sweeping. What I noticed from a bipartisan perspective by both the Democrats and the Republicans is that the one single narrow issue that they all seem to align on is not necessarily about all of the different rules around censorship, but that the lack of liability for these folks should be relieved. And I think that if you were to write a narrow amendment to section 230 that said that these social media companies or other organizations that had certain characteristics were more liable where today they have no liability, I'm not saying that it's right. But my read of the temperature in that room was that that is the very narrow change in section 230 that I think they all seem to want to make. And so that seems like a very likely thing that will happen in the next two or three years.
然后我认为第三件事是关于230条的事情本身。我认为，萨克斯，我会给你一个稍微不同的看法。我不认为230条的修改会是一种广泛而全面的改变。从两党的角度来看，我注意到他们似乎在一个狭窄的问题上达成了共识，这个问题并不一定是关于审查规定的所有不同规则，而是关于这些人们应该承担的责任缺乏。我认为，如果你对230条进行一个狭窄的修正，规定这些社交媒体公司或其他具有特定特征的组织在当前没有责任时承担更多责任，我不是说这是对的。但我对会议中的氛围感到，这似乎是他们所有人都希望实现的230条中非常狭窄的改变。所以这似乎是在未来两三年内非常可能发生的事情。
Unpack that for the audience who might not know how they would do that. Section 230 says, if you're a publisher, you're a common carrier. You're not responsible for what people post on your system, blog, web host, or social media company. But where the social media companies move from being just a common carrier, like paper might be or a website hosting company like WordPress or Squarespace is when they flip over and they have an algorithm. And then they start picking and choosing.
为那些可能不了解如何做到这一点的观众详细解释一下。第230节规定，如果你是一个出版商，你就是一个普通运营者。你不对人们在你的系统、博客、网络主机或社交媒体公司上发布的内容负责。但是当社交媒体公司摆脱普通运营者的身份，例如纸质媒体或网站托管公司（如WordPress或Squarespace），并且开始使用算法进行选择时，情况就不同了。他们开始有所选择。
So once you start doing editorial like the New York Times and you have editors, then you're liable. If you're CNN, you're liable. If you're Fox, as we saw in the Dominion case, that's where the liability comes in. So I guess the question to use acts is, at the end of the day, now that we've seen these things at scale, is there not an argument that when you start editorializing through an algorithm and you start promoting certain content that you have some level of responsibility like Fox News, CNN, or the New York Times has, where would you stand on that issue? Some liability if you're picking winners and losers in terms of what gets promoted in the system.
所以一旦你开始像《纽约时报》那样从事编辑工作，并聘请编辑，则你将承担责任。如果你是CNN，你将承担责任。正如我们在Dominion案中看到的那样，如果你是福克斯，责任就在这里。因此，我猜我想问的是，经过我们的大规模观察之后，是否不可以认为，当你通过算法进行编辑并推广某些内容时，你有一定的责任，就像福克斯新闻、CNN或《纽约时报》一样，你对此有何看法？如果你在系统中选择胜利者和失败者来推广某些内容，是否会承担一定的责任？
Well, apparently, I'm the last person in America who thinks that Section 230 was a good idea and a visionary piece of legislation that actually enabled the creation of user generated content platforms. Just to kind of slightly modify your description of how it works, I would analogize it to a newsstand where there's magazines on the newsstand, there are publishers, and then there's the newsstand itself, which is a distributor. If a magazine engages in defamation, they're reliable for it, but the newsstand is not, the newsstand can't be sued. So the question is, when you have these massive user generated content platforms, are they operating as a publisher or as a distributor? And I think what Section 230 made clear is, look, if you don't write the content, if the content is generated by users, you're a distributor. And that is, I believe, the better analogy to make for these huge UGC platforms.
显然，我似乎是美国最后一个认为《第230条款》是个好主意和具有远见的立法，实际上使得用户产生内容平台得以创立的人。简单修改一下你对它运作方式的描述，我想可以用一个报摊来类比它，报摊上有杂志，有出版商，还有报摊本身作为分销商。如果一本杂志涉及诽谤，它要负责任，但报摊不需要，不能被起诉。所以问题是，当你有这些大型的用户产生内容平台时，它们是作为出版商还是分销商在运营呢？我认为《第230条款》明确提出了一个观点，就是，看，如果你不是写作内容的人，如果内容是由用户生成的，那么你就是一个分销商。我相信，这是对这些巨大UGC平台做出的更好的类比。
Now, at the same time, what Section 230 said is that if you take good Samaritan actions to reduce things like sex and violence on your platforms, then we won't make you liable. Because what happens in a lot of cases is that you can waive your protection legally by basically getting involved. And so the legislation didn't want to deter these platforms for taking again good Samaritan steps. I think it's a pretty good combination of legislation. And that's what you see right now is that Zuckerberg doesn't want to let these edge cases through. I actually believe that they are taking huge efforts at scale. They have 40,000 people to give him some credit. There's 40,000 people moderating stuff. Yeah, these are edge cases I get through. And by the way, you have to wonder where were the parents when all this stuff happened? I mean, they're acting like they're victims in the audience. I'm sorry for their particular cases. But at the end of the day, we do need the parents to step up here. If we want to have social media at scale at all, the parents have to play a more active role. But any event to go back to Section 230, I just think that Republicans in particular are going to really regret getting rid of Section 230 because it's only going to lead to more censorship.
现在，同时，第230条款说的是，如果你采取善意行动，在你的平台上减少性和暴力等内容，那么我们就不会追究你的责任。因为在很多情况下，你可以通过参与解除你的法律保护。所以立法不希望阻碍这些平台采取善意行动。我认为这是一项相当好的立法。现在你可以看到扎克伯格不希望让这些边缘案例通过。我实际上相信他们在大规模上做出了巨大的努力。他们有4万人给他一些赞扬。有4万人在监管这些内容。是的，这些都是边缘案例。顺便说一下，你不禁要想，这些事情发生时，父母在哪里呢？我的意思是，他们在观众席上表现得像是受害者。我为他们的特殊情况感到抱歉。但归根结底，如果我们想要在规模上拥有社交媒体，父母必须更加积极地参与。但不管怎样，回到第230条款，我只是认为，特别是共和党人将会后悔废除第230条款，因为这只会导致更多的审查制度。
I think what they're going to do, if I had to bet, is that they are going to write a very narrow amendment to that law. And during some budget process or some other thing where you have a big Christmas tree bill, this will get in there. And I think it will have bipartisan support that effectively removes the liability protection that these companies have. That's not a small change. That's the entirety of Section 230. I think like these companies will not be able to use that. That's a massive change. Listen, there are cleanest lawyers. The plaintiff's lawyer is bar. The trial lawyer's bar is salivating over the possibility that would happen. That's why this is going to happen. You know, this is how America works. Personal injury, they have personal injury lawsuits and poor lawsuits lined up in every jurisdiction in the United States. And here's the thing is because Facebook and all these other sites operate across the entire nation and across the entire world, they can be sued in every single jurisdiction if you allow these types of lawsuits.
我认为，如果我必须打赌的话，他们打算做的是，他们将会对那项法律进行非常狭隘的修正。在某个预算过程或其他有大型“圣诞树法案”的情况下，这个修正案将会被加入其中。我认为，它会得到两党的支持，有效地废除这些公司所享有的责任保护。这不是一个小的变化，这是第230条的全部内容。我认为像这些公司将不能再使用这一条款。这是一个巨大的变化。听着，有一群最干净的律师在期待着这种可能的发生。这就是为什么这将会发生的原因。你知道的，这就是美国的运作方式。人身伤害，他们在美国的每一个法域都准备好了人身伤害诉讼和贫困诉讼。而且问题在于，由于Facebook和其他所有这些站点在整个国家乃至全世界都在运营，如果你允许这些类型的诉讼，它们可以在每一个法域被起诉。
Okay, Chamop, you go, then I'm going to get my position and move on. I'm going to say this in as unappininated as a way as possible.
好的，Chamop，你先走，然后我会找到我的位置并继续前进。我会尽可能以中立的方式表达这句话。
Whether we like it or not, there's an element of American capitalism that takes companies through seasons. And there are seasons where you're growing. And then there are seasons where you're over earning. And then there are seasons where if it is possible, the machinery, if you see that you are being, you are over earning for a long time, the machinery of the economy comes and kind of pulls you back down to earth. You've won too much and you're perceived as too powerful.
不论我们喜欢与否，美国资本主义中存在一种让公司经历不同阶段的因素。有时公司会经历增长期，有时则是超额收益期。如果有可能，当你发现自己长时间内超额盈利时，经济机制会将你拉回现实。你取得了过多的胜利，被认为太过强大。
Yeah. And I'm not saying this whether or not it's right. I'm just saying if you look back in history, these chapters have been written umpteen times. And I think David, what you said is the absolute single most important thing if you had to figure out where this was going to go is exactly that.
是的。我并不是说无论对错，只是如果你回顾历史，这些篇章已经被写了无数遍。而且我认为大卫，你所说的是绝对最重要的一点，如果你必须弄清楚这将会走向何方，就是这样。
The plaintiff's lawyers, the class action lawsuits, the amount of money that they think they can extract and they compare it to the amount of money that they were able to extract in two different kinds of cases. One was tobacco and then the second was pharma. And I think that they look at this class of app and the lack of empathy or the lack of popularity that the leaders of these companies have in Washington as a reason why they will probably be able to get this done to create this.
原告律师们提起了集体诉讼，并且估计了他们能够获得的赔偿金额，并将其与之前两种不同类型案件的赔偿金额进行了比较。第一种是烟草案件，第二种是制药案件。我认为他们之所以认为能够成功实施这个集体诉讼，是因为他们认为这款应用的领导者们在华盛顿缺乏同情心或者缺乏受欢迎程度。
Again, I'm not saying I think that's good. I'm saying that I think it's likely. And I think when that does happen, you will see a replay. Again, it'll be slightly different in terms of how it plays out, but exactly the kinds of plaintiff's lawsuits that we saw in pharma and in tobacco. And I think it's going to play out here. And David, you're right. That hearing to me was a setup for that.
再说一遍，我并不是在说我认为这样做是好的。我只是认为这是有可能发生的。当这种情况发生时，我认为你会看到一种重演。再次强调，这种情况的进展方式可能会有些不同，但却与我们在制药和烟草行业看到的原告诉讼非常相似。我认为这种情况也会在这里上演。戴维，你说得对。对我来说，那次听证会就是为此设下的局。
Yeah. And if you if you look at this through that lens, there will be some sort of negotiation and it might be age. Because when you look at this, really what Americans are upset about is the impact this is having on kids. We have a limit for the age of smoking, vaping, et cetera. And when these things happen, I think an easy concession that Zuckerberg and others will make is, Hey, these products will be for 16 years old and up. That's my that's the age I think it's appropriate 15 or 16 seems to be.
是的。如果你通过这个角度来看，肯定会有一些谈判，可能会涉及年龄问题。因为当你仔细思考这个问题时，真正让美国人心烦意乱的是对儿童的影响。我们对吸烟、雾化等有年龄限制。当这些事情发生时，我认为扎克伯格和其他人可以轻易让步的一点是，嘿，这些产品应该面向16岁及以上的人使用。这是我认为适用的年龄，15或16岁似乎是合适的。
Well, he also said, by the way, Jason, to your point, Lindsey Graham was the one that brought this up and Lindsey Graham made the connection to tobacco and also to firearms. Yeah. And then Mark at some point in there basically said, well, listen, like, let's look at Apple and Google, we should expect them to do the actual age verification of us. Right. Because they have the devices and they have the credit cards, etc.
嗯，顺便说一下，Jason，他也说了，这是林赛·格雷厄姆提出的，他还把烟草和枪支联系在一起。是的，然后马克在其中某个时刻基本上说，好吧，听着，让我们看看苹果和谷歌，我们应该期望他们进行我们的实际年龄验证。因为他们拥有设备和信用卡等。
That's actually a very reasonable thing for Americans to come to the other than that breaks down a little bit, sacks in your argument. And in this, there's no perfect analogies here. But if there was a repeated offense of a magazine on a newsstand, for example, if there was some magazine that had underage, you know, an adult magazine that had underage kids in it, and people knew that, and a new stand continued to publish it, they would have liability for trafficking in child pornography or whatever it happens to be. And so the new stand does get some liability.
这实际上对于美国人来说是非常合理的事情，除此之外你的论点有点崩溃，有点站不住脚。在这方面，没有完美的类比。但是，如果在一个报摊上有一本杂志一再犯错，比如说有一个成人杂志上刊登了未成年人的内容，并且人们都知道这一点，报摊继续出版它，他们将对贩卖儿童色情作品或相关罪行承担法律责任。因此，报摊确实要承担一定的责任。
So there's again, no perfect analogies here. But I think the Facebook and all these other sites are trying to remove the child porn or whatever. I don't think much like it's through at all. You know, I think maybe you have a better argument. And there is the argument that people make is that because of the feed that they're making editorial judgments and that's obviously not distributing. However, my counter arguments to that is that the feed just gives you more what you want. I mean, it just looks at what you're clicking on, what you're viewing, the time you're spending, and they just give you more of that. I don't think it's editorializing.
所以在这里并没有完美的类比。但我认为Facebook和其他网站都在努力清除儿童色情或其他类似内容。我不认为他们完全做到了。你知道，我认为也许你有更好的论点。还有一个人们提出的论点是，由于他们的信息流，他们在进行编辑判断，显然这不是分发。然而，我对此的反驳是，信息流只是根据你点击、浏览和停留的时间给你提供更多的内容。我不认为这是编辑化。
Now, back to Jamal's point about this is the way things are headed that may well be right. But I think we're going to regret it. I mean, first of all, the Democrats interest that one of their biggest donors is the trial lawyers bar and they generally will support any legislation that opens up the causes of actions and that's where this is headed. And what's going to happen is if they get rid of Section 230 is that every time there's an alleged harm that occurs, every time a kid gets bullied or beat up in school, every time something goes wrong in their life, they're going to try and in it on social media and try and show that they imbibe something on social media that let them down this dark path. And these types of companies are going to get sued in every jurisdiction in America.
现在，回到贾马尔关于事情朝着这个方向发展的论点，他可能是对的。但我认为我们会后悔的。我的意思是，首先，民主党对付诉讼律师界的最大捐助者感兴趣，他们通常会支持任何能开展责任诉讼的立法，而事情正朝着这个方向发展。如果他们废除第230条款，每次发生所谓的伤害事件时，每次有孩子在学校被欺凌或打伤，每次有些事情在他们的生活中出错，他们都会试图在社交媒体上曝光，并试图证明他们因为在社交媒体上接触了某种信息而走上了黑暗的道路。这些公司将在美国的每个司法管辖区都面临诉讼。
Recently, we've seen huge judgments related to defamation, where if you have say a red politically red defendant in a blue jurisdiction, huge awards, I think we could probably see the opposite as well, that basically you'll start seeing blue defendants taken on in red jurisdictions.
最近，我们看到了与诽谤有关的巨额判决，如果你在一个蓝色司法管辖区里有一个政治上偏红的被告，可能会受到巨大的赔偿。我认为我们也可能会看到相反的情况，也就是开始看到在红色司法管辖区追究起来的蓝色被告。
We've seen completely disproportionate judgments and again, around defamation, disproportionate relative to the harm that actually took place. You're going to see that on steroids if we get rid of Section 230.
我们已经看到了完全不成比例的裁决，而且在诽谤方面，与实际发生的伤害不成比例。如果废除第230条款，你们将会看到这种情况大大恶化。
Now, historically was the job of Republicans to oppose Democrats on this stuff because they knew that Democrats were showing for the plaintiff's bar. Republicans have not done that because they're so mad at these social media companies for censorship.
事实上，历史上共和党的任务就是在这些问题上对抗民主党，因为他们知道民主党一直站在原告代理人一边。但现在共和党并没有做到这一点，因为他们对社交媒体公司的审查制度感到非常愤怒。
So remember when I talked about Good Samaritan liability, these companies created content moderation to basically try and remove the violent material, the pornographic material, the harassing material. But in the process of doing that, they started making political judgments and they started engaging in political censorship.
记得我谈过善良撒玛利亚人责任吗？这些公司创建了内容管理来试图删除暴力、色情和骚扰材料。但在这个过程中，他们开始做出政治判断，并进行政治审查。
And that has made the Republicans so angry that they have now turned against these companies and they are willing to remove Section 230.
这导致共和党人非常愤怒，他们现在开始反对这些公司，并且愿意废除第230条款。
My point is I think Republicans at the end, they are going to regret that because if you remove Section 230, it's going to open up this flood of litigation. It'll be a free for all. It'll be a free for all.
我的观点是，我认为最终共和党人会后悔的，因为如果废除第230条款，将会引发一场诉讼洪流。这将会变成一场自由较量，无拘无束。
And what's going to happen is that these companies, just driven by simple corporate risk aversion, are going to clamp down even more. I mean, the content moderation is going to be even stricter.
接下来会发生的是，这些公司出于对风险的简单企业回避心态，会更加加强限制。我的意思是，内容管理将变得更加严格。
And because the content moderators, these companies basically are liberals. If you empower them to take down even more content, they're going to take down Republican stuff even more. It'll be very easy for the plaintiffs to target that type of content.
由于内容审核员基本上都是自由主义者。如果你赋予他们删除更多内容的权力，他们会更加倾向于删除共和党相关的东西。原告将很容易将矛头指向这类内容。
They'll say that, oh, that, you know, all of that Republican and conservative content, that influenced people in a very negative direction that created all of these harms. There'll be lawsuits targeting that sort of content and Facebook and others will respond in the economically rational way, which has shut it down completely.
他们会说，噢，那个，你知道的，所有那些共和党和保守派的内容，它对人们产生了非常负面的影响，导致了所有这些伤害。将会有针对这种类型内容的诉讼，Facebook和其他公司将以经济合理的方式做出回应，完全关闭它。
So I think senators like Josh Hawley are not going to get what they want. They're not thinking straight. Yeah, Chama is going to backfire. Yeah, it's going to backmark.
所以我认为像乔希·豪利这样的参议员们不会得到他们想要的。他们思维混乱。是的，查马将会适得其反。是的，会造成反效果。
Chama, the reason why this is going to happen, if it does happen, and you wanted to try to be probabilistic about it, is because when you look back at the tobacco settlement, the original settlement in today's dollars, about $370 billion.
Chama，如果这个事情确实发生，并且你想要尝试对此做出概率预测的原因是，当你回顾烟草和解时，最初的和解金额在今天的美元价值约为3700亿美元。
If you, if you were the trial lawyers and you're looking at a combination of Facebook and TikTok and all of the, all of that money, I suspect that they probably think that the potential that they can extract from these companies is going to be multiples of that number.
如果你是审判律师，正在考虑结合Facebook和TikTok以及相关的所有资产，那么我怀疑他们可能认为从这些公司中提取的潜力将是这个数字的多倍。
And then as a result, their fees will be between 20 and 50% of that. So you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue potential that will motivate, I think, these folks to get the law changed.
然后作为结果，他们的费用将会是这个金额的20%至50%。所以我们在谈论数百亿美元的潜在收入，我相信这将激励这些人去改变法律。
And then the byproduct will not be framed in terms of dollars. If these are highly kinetic issues when you're talking about sexual exploitation and young people and mental health and suicide and bullying, these are very kinetic issues, right?
然后，这个副产品不会用美元来衡量。当涉及到性侵、年轻人问题、心理健康、自杀和欺凌等高度紧迫的问题时，这些都是非常紧迫的问题，对吗？
And so bringing these to jury trials all across the United States, I think that they probably think that they're on the right side of history and winning those things. So, you know, again, I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it. I'm not saying it. I'm highly emotional. I mean, listen, it's going to win.
所以将这些问题带到美国各地的陪审团审判，我认为他们可能认为自己站在历史的正确一边，赢得了这些案件。所以，你知道的，再说一次，我不是在说这是对的。我不是说这个。我不是说这个。我非常情绪化。听着，这个会赢的。
You bring a case of say teen suicide. Okay. Horrible that it happens. But there's going to every time something like that happens, there's going to be a huge temptation. I'm sure there'll be trial lawyers who specialize in this to bring a case against Facebook or some other social media company.
你提到了一个关于青少年自杀的案例。好的，这种情况发生真是可怕。但每次发生这样的事情时，必然会出现巨大的诱惑。我敢肯定会有专门从事此类案件的诉讼律师控告Facebook或其他社交媒体公司。
And they're going to scour through these accounts and try to point to examples that could have led to this result. And the truth of the matter is that maybe social media contributed a little bit.
他们将会仔细查看这些账户，并试图找到可能导致这个结果的例子。事实上，社交媒体可能稍微起了一点作用。
What about popular culture and popular entertainment? What about all the messages? I'm not debating any of that. I'm just I'm pointing out what's going to happen.
那么，流行文化和大众娱乐呢？所有的信息又如何呢？我不在讨论这些。我只是在指出即将发生的事情。
What about all the messages they received? Not not through the edge cases that got through on social media, but through the mainstream entertainment. I mean, all the shows are watching on television, all the music they're listening to, the things that happened in their schools and data conversations with other kids.
他们收到的所有信息呢？不是通过社交媒体上的一些特殊情况，而是通过主流娱乐渠道。我指的是他们在电视上观看的所有节目，他们听的音乐，以及他们在学校中发生的事情和与其他孩子的交流。
But you can't really sue any of those other things, but you can sue social media. The crazy thing about all of this is that all of these lawsuits are funded in part by these hedge funds who will do litigation finance and part of putting together a well-performing litigation finance fund is underwriting the probability of success.
但你实际上不能起诉其他那些东西，但你可以起诉社交媒体。这一切的疯狂之处在于，所有这些诉讼都在一定程度上由这些对冲基金资助，他们会进行诉讼融资，而一个表现良好的诉讼融资基金的组建部分是对成功可能性的保障。
And I think when you flow through the probabilities and you apply it to these companies, largely because of their profitability and their ability to over earn and generate profits, I suspect that Wall Street is probably already involved. And if not, they'll probably get involved and do course.
我认为，当你对这些公司的可能性进行流动性分析并将其应用于它们，主要是因为它们的盈利能力和能够超出预期收益并生成利润的能力，我怀疑华尔街可能已经参与其中。如果还没有参与，他们很可能会参与并采取行动。
But it's an unfortunate thing, David. I agree because this is sort of like, hey, the rules on the field were X and folks operated by those and they are clear they are trying to do their best. But again, this is where capitalism, the part of capitalism that can be awkward and uncomfortable is when industries over earn for long periods of time, other folks say, I am going to compete away those returns somehow and I want a share of those profits. And I think that that's going to be the large motivator.
但这是不幸的事情，大卫。我同意这个观点，因为这有点像，嘿，场上的规则是X，人们都按照这些规则行事，他们明确表示他们在尽力而为。但是，这就是资本主义的一部分，可能会让人感到尴尬和不舒服的地方在于，当某些行业长期过度赚钱时，其他人就会说，我要以某种方式来竞争那些收益，并且我想分享这些利润。我认为这将是一个重要的动力因素。
And it's just going to result in, I think, these things changing and a plethora of lawsuits. And at the end of the day, this is about children and protecting children. So the obvious solution here is society has to come up with a number. Well, sadly, I think that could be a bit easier to.
我认为，这将导致事情的改变和大量的诉讼。而这一切的核心是关于儿童和保护儿童。所以，显而易见的解决方案就是社会必须想出一个数字。可惜的是，我认为这可能更容易一些。
Well, let me finish my thought here. The key thing is there's some age in which we all agree it's reasonable for kids to be using social media. And there's a certain age when we think it's not reasonable. And back to capitalism, I think a very good point you made, Shmoft. These companies are going to have to say, well, if we lose the 12 to 15 year olds, is that better for society and better for our business? And we just all agree that social media should start at 15 or 16. And then the handset manufacturers and the social sites all have to get permission from your parents to use them period full stop. And that's it. And that may be where this all lines up, I think.
好的，让我在这里完成我的想法。关键是有一定的年龄界限，我们都认为孩子使用社交媒体是合理的。而在另一定年龄时，我们认为这是不合理的。回到资本主义方面，我认为你说得很好，Shmoft。这些公司会不得不考虑，如果我们失去12到15岁的用户，对社会和我们的业务来说是否更好？我们都应该一致认为社交媒体应该从15或16岁开始。然后手机制造商和社交网站都必须得到你父母的许可才能使用它们，完全终止此事。我认为这可能是大家达成一致的地方。
And then also explaining the algorithms, I think is the next thing that's going to happen. People are going to have to disclose how these algorithms work. I think you're making a very good point, which is that is the right conversation to have. My point was that instead of having that conversation, which is more societal, it involves David's right parental responsibility, what is our role? Absolutely. But being actively involved. And by the way, the trends around family formation and the fact that there's way more single-parent families make this problem even harder, because now there's only one person to check in and not two people to check in. So all these things societally build on itself.
然后解释算法，我认为这将是接下来要发生的事情。人们将不得不披露这些算法的工作原理。我认为你的观点非常好，也就是这是正确的对话。我的观点是，与其进行那种更社会化的对话，还涉及到大卫的权利和父母责任，我们的角色是什么？绝对是这样。但必须积极参与。而且，也要注意到家庭结构的变化，事实上，单亲家庭越来越多，这使得这个问题变得更加困难，因为现在只有一个人来关注，而不是两个人。所以，所有这些社会问题都是互相影响的。
Jason, that is the absolute right conversation to have. My point is that's not going to be why the rules need to get rewritten. The rules will get rewritten because there's an economic argument by a different sector of the economy. In this case, the trial lawyers and other folks that say there's a trillion dollars to be had if we get this law change, they are motivated enough to do that.
杰森，这绝对是应该进行的正确对话。我的观点是，这不会是重新制定规则的原因。规则将被重新制定，是因为经济界的另一个部门提出了经济论证。在这种情况下，试验律师和其他人声称如果我们改变法律，就有一万亿美元可以获得，他们对此有足够的动力。
Yeah. A parasitic sector. So there is a bill right now working its way through the California assembly that would go to Gavin Newsom that would prohibit the use of social media by under 16 year olds. So that is actually happening.
是的，一种寄生性行业。目前有一项法案正在加利福尼亚立法机构中进行审议，将提交给加文·纽森，该法案将禁止16岁以下的人使用社交媒体。这事实上正在发生。
Yeah. I agree with you. That's a better debate to have than changing Section 230 in a way that's going to lead to more censorship. By the way, just just on that point, I think Republicans you don't understand this in particular is that the anger towards these companies is bipartisan. The outrage is bipartisan. The moral panic is bipartisan. You saw on in that hearing, you couldn't really tell the different stream Republicans and Democrats. So I wouldn't be surprised if they agreed, like Jamal said, on some sort of changes Section 230. But here's the catch is that Republicans and Democrats have fundamentally different objectives. Fundamentally Democrats want there to be more censorship. They say this all the time. We want you taking down more content, not less. Republicans want there to be less censorship. So if they agree on the same piece of legislation, only one of them can be right. Okay. And the question is, who's going to be right? My guess is that if Democrats and Republicans agree on a Section 230 modification, the Democrats know what they're doing and the Republicans generally being the stupid party who get out smarter all the time by Democrats are going to agree to something that they later regret.
没错，我同意你的观点。相比于以一种会导致更多审查的方式修改第230条，这是一个更好的辩论。顺便说一句，在这个问题上，共和党人尤其不明白的是，对这些公司的愤怒是两党共同的。公愤是两党共同的。道德恐慌也是两党共同的。我们可以看到在那次听证会上，你无法真正辨别出共和党人和民主党人之间的差别。所以，如果他们同意像贾马尔说的那样修改第230条的某些部分，我不会感到惊讶。但问题在于，共和党和民主党有根本上不同的目标。民主党的根本目标是希望有更多的审查。他们经常这样说。我们希望你删除更多的内容，而不是更少。而共和党希望减少审查。所以，如果他们在同一项立法上达成一致，只有一个是正确的。好吧。问题是，谁会是正确的呢？我猜，如果民主党和共和党在第230条的修改上达成一致，民主党知道他们在做什么，而共和党通常作为一个愚蠢的政党，在许多情况下被民主党出奇制胜，他们将同意一些后来后悔的事情。
So at the end of the day, I don't think that bipartisan legislation should be possible. The anger is bipartisan, but the objectives are not. And if something gets through, it's going to be because Republicans make a huge mistake. And just to give a tangible example of this, okay, take the Second Amendment, okay. Do you think that in this world where there's no Section 230, that Republicans are still going to be out of conversations online about say, gun enthusiasm? No way.
到了最后，我认为两党立法是不可行的。愤怒情绪是两党共同的，但目标并不一样。如果有什么法案通过，那只能是因为共和党犯了一个大错误。举个具体的例子吧，就拿第二修正案来说。你觉得在这个没有第230条款的世界里，共和党人还会被排除在有关热衷枪支话题的在线对话之外吗？不可能。
Because every time some harm happens, every time there's a shooting of some kind, a plaintiff's lawyer, a plaintiff's lawyer is going to ask to not the person who posted the content, talking about how much they love their guns. And you know, and look, it could be totally innocuous. Okay, it could be a forum on Facebook or Reddit where people are just having conversations about or interviews or interviews. Yeah, be totally innocuous conversations. Okay, people having the right kind of conversations about guns. Okay, but you know that every one of those websites that hosts those conversations will be targeted in relation to any harm that occurs in the real world. And very soon, Reddit and Facebook and all the rest will feel compelled to ban any conversation related to even Second Amendment rights. Okay, this is where it will lead if Republicans get rid of Section 230. You will be the ones targeted, not liberals.
因为每次发生伤害事件，每次发生某种枪支事件，原告律师，原告律师会要求不是发布内容的人讨论他们有多么喜欢枪支。你知道，可能完全无害。好吧，可能是在Facebook或Reddit上的一个论坛，人们只是在进行谈话或采访。是的，完全无害的谈话。好吧，人们就是在进行正确类型的有关枪支的谈话。但是你知道，这些主持这些谈话的网站将会成为与真实世界中任何伤害事件相关的攻击目标。很快，Reddit、Facebook和其他所有类似网站将感到被迫禁止任何与第二修正案权利有关的谈话。如果共和党废除第230条款，情况就会发展到这个地步。攻击的目标将是你们，而不是自由派。
All right, great discussion. You know, it's important to have the right discussion. And this reminds me of the abortion discussion where nobody would ever talk about the number of weeks. Like, that's at the core of the issue. We could agree on the number of weeks, we can agree on the age here, you know, for kids to use these things. Maybe we can move forward. Let's move forward on the docket here. We got so much to talk about.
好的，非常棒的讨论。你知道，拥有正确的讨论非常重要。这让我想起了堕胎讨论，没有人愿意谈论周数，而那正是问题的核心。如果我们能就周数达成共识，我们可以就年龄问题，孩子们能使用这些东西的年龄，达成共识。也许我们可以向前迈进。让我们继续议程吧。我们还有很多要谈论的事情。
And I think the number one story of the week was Elon's pay package and this ruling that occurred in Delaware. Let me just tee this up here. Many of you probably know about this already. But in 2018, Tesla's board approved a performance based compensation package for Elon was approved by 73% of shareholders. Elon and his brother Kimball would have put that at 80%, but they were excluded, obviously. This is lower than maybe some other support levels. According to Reuters, you typically see 95% for a executive compensation packet. But this one was very unique. It was all stock. There's no cash bonus, no salary. 12 tranches of stock was very creative in how this was put together because Elon got nothing if he doubled the value of Tesla. But then if he, you know, increased the value of the top line revenue and the market cap increased by $50 billion, he got 1% more of the outstanding shares, which is an amazing deal for shareholders, obviously, because the market cap on the company went up 50 billion. The initial plan was only worth about 2.6 billion. But since Tesla crushed it from 2018 to 2023, we'll throw up a chart here. So when the great runs in the history of capitalism, how revenue and sales grew at this company, so it made it the largest comp package in the history of public markets. And if you compare Tesla to Apple, the second highest increasing stock price during that same time period, Apple went up 345%, Tesla went up 800%. In 2018, a Tesla shareholder sued Elon and the Tesla's board, claiming the pay package was unfair. The guy had nine shares, a full nine shares, not 10, nine, worth $2,500. His stake with 10x in those six years. So he made a fortune on that bet. And then on Tuesday, a Delaware judge voided Elon's pay package, starting with the investor. Elon can appeal it to the Delaware Supreme Court, sacks your thoughts on this ruling. I teed it up. I think I got all the details in there. If I missed any, please add them.
我认为上周的头条新闻是埃隆的薪酬计划以及在特拉华州发生的这个裁决。让我来介绍一下这个情况。你们中的许多人可能已经知道了。但是在2018年，特斯拉的董事会批准了一项以绩效为基础的埃隆薪酬计划，董事会以73%的股东赞成通过了这项计划。埃隆和他的兄弟金波尔可能认为这个比例应该是80%，但显然他们被排除在外了。这个比例可能低于其他一些支持水平。据路透社报道，高管薪酬计划通常会有95%的支持率。但这个计划非常独特。它全部以股票形式出现，没有现金奖金，没有薪水。总共分成了12个阶段的股票，组合方式非常巧妙，因为如果埃隆使特斯拉股票价值翻倍，他将一无所获。但是如果他增加公司的营收和市值增加500亿美元，他将获得更多1%的优先股，这对股东来说是一笔惊人的交易，因为公司市值增加了500亿。最初的计划价值约为26亿美元。但自从2018年到2023年，特斯拉表现出色，我们来看一下图表。对于资本主义历史上的伟大成功之一，特斯拉的收入和销售额增长了，使其成为公开市场历史上最大的薪酬计划。如果将特斯拉与苹果相比，后者在同一时期的股价增长排名第二，苹果涨了345%，而特斯拉涨了800%。在2018年，一位特斯拉股东起诉了埃隆和特斯拉董事会，声称这个薪酬计划是不公平的。这个人手头有9股特斯拉股票，价值2500美元。在这六年里，他的股权增长了10倍。所以他在这次赌注上赚了一大笔。然后在周二，特拉华州的一位法官废除了埃隆的薪酬计划，从投资者开始。埃隆可以向特拉华州最高法院上诉，你对这个裁决有什么想法？我大致介绍了情况，如果有遗漏的，请补充。
Well, I think in order to reach this ruling, the judge had to find three things and all of them had to be the case in her opinion. Number one, that the pay package was excessive. Number two, that the process by which they came up with the pay package was not fair, meaning it was not sufficiently adversarial enough that the directors in her opinion had too many ties to Elon and didn't again take enough of a antagonistic role in negotiating that package.
嗯，我认为为了做出这个裁决，法官必须找到三个要点，并且在她的看法中，这三个要点都必须成立。第一，薪酬方案过于高额。第二，制定薪酬方案的过程不公平，意味着董事们在她看来与埃隆存在过多的联系，并且在谈判该薪酬方案时没有足够的对抗性角色。
And number three, and I think most importantly, that the shareholder vote was invalid. Because even if the first two had been true, the shareholders approved it. And that would have been good enough. But she said that the shareholders weren't sufficiently informed. And specifically, I think this argument hung on a few internal emails where people said that they thought that they could hit the numbers.
而且，我认为最重要的是，股东投票是无效的。即使前两个条件成立，股东也已经批准了。这本来就足够了。但她说股东没有得到足够的信息。特别是，我认为这个论点依赖于一些内部邮件，在这些邮件中，人们表示他们认为他们可以达到这些数字。
I think that of the three legs of this, well, all three have been challenged by opponents of this verdict. I mean, number one, yes, the pay package ended up being a gargantuan amount. But you have to look at an ex ante, not exposed. Nobody thought Elon could hit all these numbers back at the time this package was negotiated. Let's be frank, it was absurd. The idea that he would 10 X it was great clip with Andrew Ross Sorkin, where they're all laughing at the idea that he's going to hit these numbers. Remember, this was at a time when Elon was going through what was called production hell, where he was sleeping on the floor factory. Yeah, I was there. And come out yet and nobody nobody believed that the model through is going to be the hit that it was. In fact, all the stories were pooping that idea and basically saying that Tesla is basically screwed because they can't get the production line working correctly.
我认为，在这个问题的三个方面中，所有三个方面都受到了对这一判决持不同意见的人的挑战。首先，确实，薪酬方案最终变成了一笔巨额金额。但你必须从事前的角度来看待，而不是事后。在当时谈判这个薪酬方案时，没有人认为埃隆能够达到这些数字。说实话，这是荒谬的。认为他能够增加10倍是安德鲁·罗斯·索尔金与他一起大笑的一个片段。记得，在那个时候，埃隆正在经历所谓的生产困难，他甚至在工厂的地板上睡觉。是的，我在那里。而且，车型3还没有推出，没有人相信它会取得如此巨大的成功。事实上，所有的报道都在贬低这个想法，基本上认为特斯拉完蛋了，因为他们无法正确运作生产线。
Yeah, you want to play this test on now announcing a radical new compensation plan. It could be perhaps the most radical compensation plan in history. The executive will receive no guaranteed compensation of any time of any kind at all. He gets no salary, cash bonus equity. He only gets equity that that vests over time. But only if he reaches these hurdle rates, which are, dare I say, crazy. The only part of it that I think is really relevant is where Sorkin says that the milestones are crazy, meaning that everyone thought it was a pipe dream that the company would ever hit these numbers.
是的，你现在想玩的是一项关于宣布一项激进新的薪酬计划的测试。这可能是历史上最激进的薪酬计划。高管将不会得到任何形式的保证性薪酬。他不会获得薪水、现金奖金或股权。他只会获得随时间解锁的股权。但只有在他达到这些目标利润率时，才会获得股权，我敢说，这是疯狂的。我认为唯一相关的部分就是Sorkin说里面的目标利润率是疯狂的，意思是大家都认为公司实现这些数字是一种白日梦。
Okay, so that's point number one on on magnitude. On the second part of the ruling about the process, it is true that like in most venture backed startups, there's a long standing relationship between the founder and the investors because they work collaboratively to try and make the company a success. There were emails that came out where Elon shows that I'm not trying to go for the maximum here. So did the investors go in with a hostile antagonistic attitude that we're going to try and pay you the least? No. But did Elon go in with the attitude that I'm going to try and take the most? No. The email showed that. What they tried to do was come up with something that they thought was fair that would fairly reward him for outsized performance. And if he had merely increased the value of Tesla from 59 billion to 100 billion, he would have gotten nothing. Let's just keep that in mind. So they tried to come up with something that would reward him for outsized performance and give him absolutely nothing for merely decent or good performance.
好的，所以这是关于规模的第一点。在关于流程的第二部分的裁决中，确实像大多数风险投资支持的创业公司一样，创始人和投资者之间有长期的合作关系，因为他们共同努力使公司取得成功。有一些电子邮件显示，埃隆并没有试图追求最大的利益。那么投资者是否持敌对的敌意，试图尽量少支付给他呢？不是的。但埃隆是否带着我要争取最大利益的态度而去呢？也不是的。邮件显示了这一点。他们试图提出一些他们认为公平的方式来奖励他超出预期的表现。如果他仅仅将特斯拉的市值从590亿美元增加到1000亿美元，他将一无所获。让我们记住这一点。所以他们试图提出一些能奖励他超出预期表现的方式，对他仅仅达到或超过良好表现则一无所给。
The third point about the shareholder vote, I don't think that there was anything about the shareholder vote that the shareholders didn't know. I don't think that the company didn't release. If Elon always said, yeah, we're going to do this. We're going to be one of those valuable companies in the world. He's always been super optimistic about their ability to reach these targets. But if you looked at all the Wall Street analysts, including Sorkin there, they thought that these targets were unreachable. Well, also to add to that, Sacks, this had the largest short position, I believe at that time of any company ever. People were betting with their dollars that this company was going to zero. There were a ton of people who the narrative was this they'll never deliver the Model 3. It was two years late, right? Or something in that range. They kept trying to get the Model 3 out. It was taking forever. So yeah, it's absurd.
关于股东投票的第三点，我不认为有任何关于股东投票的事情是股东不知道的。我不认为公司有隐瞒。如果埃隆一直说，是的，我们要做到这一点。我们将成为世界上最有价值的公司之一。他一直对公司实现这些目标的能力非常乐观。但是如果你看过所有华尔街的分析师，包括索金（Sorkin），他们认为这些目标是难以实现的。还有萨克斯（Sacks）也补充说，这家公司在那个时候拥有有史以来最大的空头头寸。人们用他们的资金押注这家公司将归零。有很多人认为他们永远不会交付Model 3。它比计划晚了两年，对吧？或者大致是这个范围。他们一直努力将Model 3推出去。花了很长时间。所以是的，这是荒谬的。
Also in that case, Sorkin said in that same clip, there's been a lot of speculation of Elon stepping down after the Model 3 is in production in the judges ruling, which he said the exact opposite. There is no reason to leave, except that he was running like two or three other companies.
在那个情况下，索金在同一段视频中说，有很多关于埃隆在Model 3投产后辞职的猜测，但他在法官的裁决中说了完全相反的话。除了他还要经营另外两三家公司之外，没有任何理由离开。
It was actually quite possible that he would leave. He never wanted to be CEO of Tesla. People forget that too. He had tried three CEOs of Tesla and he only took over Tesla. And I remember it was because he said, Jason, this thing's going to fail if I don't take it over. He tried three different CEOs in the beginning. People forget that fact. And there was a scuttlebutt that he would hire somebody. I remember there was rumors about Sheryl Sandberg maybe getting off of the job or something like that.
实际上，他可能会离开是很有可能的。他从来没有想过成为特斯拉的首席执行官。人们也忘记了这一点。在特斯拉的首席执行官职位上，他试过三个人，最后他接管了特斯拉。我还记得他曾说过，如果我不接管，这个公司会失败。一开始，他试过三个不同的首席执行官。人们也忘记了这个事实。还有传言说他将会雇佣某人。我记得有传言说谢丽尔·桑德伯格可能会有这个职位或者类似的工作。
I remember he was he was going through production hell. He was sleeping on the factory floor. And he was talking in interviews about how miserable his life was at that time. I mean, pan can confirm. Yeah, exactly.
我记得他正在经历制作的地狱阶段。他睡在工厂地板上。他在采访中谈到当时生活的痛苦。我的意思是，潘可以证实。是的，完全正确。
So look, did he have leverage to basically say, you know what, let's hire a CEO? Yeah, absolutely.
看吧，他是否具备足够的影响力来基本上说出：“你知道吗，我们应该雇佣一位首席执行官？” 是的，绝对有。
Okay, Shamaf, any steelman you can do at the other side here, like as an investor, public market investor sometimes, would you saw that pay package? What did you think? I don't know if you were a shareholder of Tesla at the time or not.
好的，Shamaf，你能在这边做一个钢人分析吗？比如作为一个投资者，有时候你会看到那样的薪酬方案吗？你觉得怎么样？我不知道当时你是否是特斯拉的股东。
In the mid teens, I started investing in public stocks as well as private tech companies. And I got invited to give a presentation at the Iris Zone conference, which is like the most prestigious conference of public market investors. In May, you show up at Lincoln Center and everybody in the audience is paying like 10,000 bucks a ticket or something. And all the proceeds go to a foundation in support of this gentleman, Iris Zone, who passed away. But in any event, it's like Ackman, Tapper, Einhorn, and I picked Tesla. And I was a very big supporter in many ways and still am. And I think that I knew the company, frankly, better than most people, except for him, obviously. But I think that I studied this company quite deeply. And I'm just setting the context. When I saw the pay package, I thought he's making a mistake. This is unachievable. I thought the probabilities were in the low single digits. And then he did it, which just kind of shows how incredibly adept he is as a CEO and a manager and an executor.
我的十几岁时开始投资公开股票和私人科技公司。我被邀请在Iris Zone会议上发表演讲，这是公开市场投资者最具声望的会议之一。在五月的时候，你来到林肯中心，观众们为每张门票支付了大约1万美元。所有的收益都将用于支持已故的这位绅士Iris Zone的基金会。总之，有Ackman、Tapper、Einhorn和我选择了特斯拉。在许多方面，我一直是他的坚定支持者，现在仍然如此。除了他本人之外，我觉得我对这家公司的了解比大多数人更深入。我只是在为后面的内容做一些铺垫。当我看到他的薪酬计划时，我觉得他犯了一个错误。这是不可实现的。我认为实现的可能性非常低。但他做到了，这只是显示了他作为一位首席执行官、管理者和执行者的无比能力。
So then, you know, to go back five or six years later, after he actually does something that so massively disproportionately positively impacted investors, and then to just rescind it and unwind it, I think is really un-American and unfair.
所以，你知道的，要在五六年后撤销和取消某事，而这件事实际上对投资者产生了巨大而非常积极的影响，我认为这是非常不符合美国价值观和不公平的行为。
And I think it sets a very poor standard for why anybody should actually build a company governed in Delaware. It makes no sense anymore. And just to give you that example, he and I have both now done this, but like these incremental companies that I've started are in Nevada. They're in different places because I find the Delaware court slightly and increasingly unpredictable and acting with other mandates that they weren't ever given.
我认为这为为什么任何人都应该在特拉华州建立一家公司设立了一个非常糟糕的标准。这样不再有意义了。只是为了给你一个例子，他和我现在都这样做了，但是像我创办的这些逐渐发展的公司都在内华达州。它们分布在不同的地方，因为我觉得特拉华州法院的判决稍微越来越不可预测，并且超出了它们本应承担的其他职责。
So you, what do you think that mandate is? You had a place where there was highly predictable governance and they had very narrow ways in which they would act and opine. And I think in a situation like this, where you had every opportunity to actually vote this thing down and what little of the documentation that I saw about the communication back and forth doesn't seem to support this theory that he rammed it through. Nobody rams anything through over nine months where he takes month long breaks and he tells the GC, this is actually more than I want it. Nobody does that if you're rammed. It's the opposite of rapping something through. And I suspect if you really asked him, and I haven't, but I would, he probably thought it was like largely crazy.
那么你认为授权措施是什么意思呢？你待过一个非常可预测的管理环境，他们采取行动和表达观点的方式非常有限。在这种情况下，你完全有机会反对这件事，而我所看到的在往来文件中并不支持他急忙通过的理论。在九个月的时间里，他还放了一个月的假，他告诉GC，这实际上比我想要的还要多。如果是急忙通过，没有人会这样做。这正好相反。我猜想，如果你真的问他，虽然我没有这样做，但我会这样问，他可能认为这个授权措施在很大程度上是疯狂的。
And so I think a lot of people thought that we were as shareholders, and I'll tell you that I felt this way, getting his hard work and that he may have just mathematically been mistaken. So yes, he got 55 or that packages are at 55.8 billion. But you're missing the point where every other investor made $500 billion. Right? And the investors, investors did approve it.
所以我认为很多人以为我们作为股东，我也是这样认为的，得到了他的辛勤工作，也许只是在数学计算上出了错。对，他得到了550亿美元，或者说准确地说是558亿美元。但是你错过了一点，其他每位投资者都赚了5000亿美元。对吧？而且投资者们也同意了这个决定。
It will have a chilling effect, I think, in how people think about compensation, it will cause companies to be even more constipated and sclerotic and unimaginative as a result of this, because the most talented individual entrepreneurs now have even more of an incentive for incorporating in other places and also staying private. And I think what that deprives is the broader shareholders, including this gentleman.
我想这将会产生一种寒蝉效应，影响人们对待薪酬的看法。结果将导致公司变得更加压抑、僵化和缺乏创新力，因为最有才华的创业者们现在会更有动力把公司注册在其他地方，并保持私有化状态。我认为这将剥夺广大股东的权益，包括这位先生在内。
Look, we live in America, he had the right to sue. He had nine shares, and he was able to bring this lawsuit, nine shares. I mean, David Elias, yeah, I'm big. The idea that I had nine shares who 10x their money. But what he doesn't, but you know, unimaginable. I don't know if he remained a shareholder through this whole period, but even those nine shares, 10x in value.
看，我们住在美国，他有权提起诉讼。他拥有九股份，他能够提起这个诉讼，九股份。我的意思是，大卫·伊利亚斯，是的，我很厉害。我拥有的九股份他们的价值翻了十倍。但他不知道的是，你知道的，难以想象。我不知道他在整个时期是否仍是股东，但即使只有这九股份，价值也翻增了十倍。
Yes. Yes. But he would now be deprived of that in this next iteration of Elon Musk's because why would they ever go through this to put that much work into something to be so at risk personally, your own mental and physical health, we saw him in those periods. And then to have it taken away, I think is deeply, deeply unfair.
是的。是的。但在埃隆·马斯克的下一个发展阶段中，他将被剥夺这样的待遇，因为为什么他们要冒着这样的风险去投入如此多的工作，来危害个人的心理健康和身体健康，我们在那些时期看到过他。然后一切被夺走，我认为这是非常非常不公平的。
Sex, you're right. This this deal was a win-win. I mean, if Elon could achieve these numbers, it was good for him, and it was great for shareholders. And that's why I think the key point is that 73 or 80%, depending on how you want to count it, approved this deal. I think they knew everything relevant that they needed to know when they approved it. This is the deal that most shareholders in most companies would want for the CEO. The deal is you get nothing unless you deliver an outsized return for shareholders.
性别，你说得对。这笔交易确实是双赢的。我的意思是，如果埃隆能够实现这些数字，那对他来说是好事，对股东们来说更是好事。这就是我认为最关键的一点，73%或80%，具体取决于你怎么计算，同意了这笔交易。我认为他们在批准之前已经了解到了所有必要的信息。这是大多数公司的股东们希望给首席执行官的交易。交易是这样的，除非你为股东提供超额回报，否则你将一无所得。
Most CEOs won't sign up for this deal. Most CEOs work their way up through the corporate ladder. They get into the CEO chair, and then they pay themselves huge amounts of money regards to whether the company succeeds or fails. And that's the deal they want because they don't really have confidence in themselves to deliver what's sort called the crazy outcome. Elon had the confidence in himself to deliver the crazy outcome. And nobody was really complaining about this until, like you said, this small shareholder, who's really basically just named plaintiff for the trial lawyer's bar or somebody who wants to get Elon to bring this suit.
大多数首席执行官不会接受这个交易。大多数首席执行官通过公司晋升途径一步步地提升自己的职位。他们进入首席执行官的位置后，不论公司是否成功，他们都给自己支付巨额薪酬。这就是他们想要的交易，因为他们对自己能够实现所谓的疯狂结果没有真正的信心。埃隆相信自己能够实现疯狂的结果。在你所说的那个小股东提起诉讼之前，没有人真正抱怨这个问题，这个小股东实际上只是法庭律师事务所或想要让埃隆提起诉讼的人给他起的名字。
6% to create 600 billion in value. I mean, it's quite a bargain, folks. And I think if you went to Ford or GM and said, hey, would you like you want to be your CEO, I think that off them half the company. Mary Bear doesn't want this deal.
6%创造6000亿的价值。我是说，这个交易相当划算，朋友们。而且我认为如果你去找福特或通用汽车说，嘿，你想要成为他们的首席执行官吗，我想他们会愿意出让一半的公司给你。玛丽·贝尔不希望这个交易发生。
Yeah, no, J Cal Sachs said something really important that you just mentioned as well, which is that if you actually look at the average compensation plan of most public company CEOs, it actually is very much counter to shareholder value. I'll give you one simple example. If you look at the number of CEO comp packages that are tied to earnings per share growth. But then if you actually look at how these CEOs achieve their EPS targets, they do it by raising debt. So in debting the company, right, increasing the enterprise value by by loading the company up with debt and then driving repurchase plans. And what do those do? I mean, look, if you look at Disney, where do their repurchases come from from debt? So, does debt help an equity shareholder? It categorically does not under no world does it do that. However, for the CEO and for the handful of investors that can hold on for long periods of time, or to have you, they benefit from a lower share account. They benefit from increased EPS and then the CEO gets compensated. And so to say that tacitly, what you disapprove of are performance incentives. And what you are actually approving of are mechanics that saddle a company with debt and allow basically gaming of numbers is what you've implicitly also said. And this is where I think the Delaware court used to be known for a level of intellectual clarity that would have prevented that implicit assumption. But that's now what's left on the table. And I think it will have a ripple effect across how so many other companies design their compensation plans, how CEOs think about risk.
是的，J Cal Sachs提到了一个非常重要的观点，你也刚刚提到了，那就是实际上大多数上市公司CEO的平均薪酬计划与股东价值完全背道而驰。我给你一个简单的例子。如果你看一下与每股收益增长挂钩的CEO薪酬方案的数量，然后如果你实际上看一下这些CEO是如何实现他们的每股收益目标的，他们是通过增加债务来实现的。所以通过给公司增加债务，提高企业价值，然后推动回购计划来完成这些目标。那么这些回购计划有什么作用呢？我的意思是，如果你看一下迪士尼，他们的回购是通过债务来实现的。那么，债务对股东有帮助吗？在任何情况下都不是，它绝不会带来这样的效果。然而，对于那些能够长期持有股票的CEO和少数投资者来说，他们会从较少的股票数量中受益。他们从增加的每股收益中受益，然后CEO得到相应的补偿。所以，你间接地表达了你不赞成绩效激励，而你实际上赞成的是通过债务负担公司，以及允许操纵数据的机制。这就是我认为特拉华法院曾以一种能够防止这种隐含假设的知识清晰度而闻名的地方，但现在这种假设就留在桌子上了。我认为这将对许多其他公司的薪酬计划设计以及CEO对风险的思考产生连锁反应。
No CEO as Sax said will ever want an incentive laden plan like this ever. They will write because 10 years later, you could do all the work and then it gets canceled canceled. So they will want something that is totally gameable. Right, where you'll have 90 plus percent support and approval, because of how vanilla and benign it is on the surface. But it will actually be quite a terrible plan underneath the service. And what I mean specifically are these EPS targets for CEOs. So Elon did the one thing that was crazy, which was I'm just going to do it based on pure profitability and performance. And he gets punished and all these CEOs in this other class who were like, let me saddle these companies with debt that actually undermine shareholders have been rewarded.
没有像Sax所说的那样的CEO会想要像这样的有激励的计划。他们会这么做是因为10年后，你可能会做所有的工作，然后计划被取消。所以他们会想要一些完全可以操纵的东西。对，你会得到90%以上的支持和批准，因为表面上它非常普通和无害。但实际上，在表面之下，它将是一个相当糟糕的计划。我所指的具体是针对CEO的EPS目标。所以埃隆做了一件疯狂的事情，只是基于纯利润和绩效来做。而他却受到了惩罚，而这些在其他阶层的CEO中，他们却得到了奖励，这些CEO都是让公司背负债务，实际上破坏了股东的利益。
There is already a mechanism for somebody who disagrees with the comp package. This person who on the night shares could have sold their shares. It's a liquid market at any point in time that person can say, I don't agree with this. I'm taking my nine shares in twenty five hundred dollars. I'm going to put it in Apple. I'm going to put it into, I like Tim Cook's pay package better. I like Benny off package better. And I'll make my bet there. The person had choice.
已经存在一个机制，用于对公司薪酬方案持不同意见的人。那位拥有公司股份的人可以在任何时间点出售他们的股份。这是一个流动性市场，那个人可以说，我不同意这个方案。我要把我的九股股份换成2500美元，投资苹果。我更喜欢蒂姆·库克的薪酬方案，或者本尼奥夫的方案。我将在那里下注。那个人有选择权。
Yes, Max. This person was not a victim. He's not victim because he could have sold the shares and bought other shares. And he's not a victim because he 10 X to share. It's a beat the market. Yeah, I mean, look, I don't place the blame on the shareholder per se because this is really about a judge's interpretation of Delaware law and what companies are allowed to do. So, whether the shareholder was harmed or not or had one share or million shares, that's just the way that this case gets into court. The question is the interpretation of Delaware law.
是的，Max。这个人并不是受害者。他不是受害者，因为他本可以把股票卖出去，然后买其他股票。而且他也不是受害者，因为他的股票升值了10倍。这是击败市场。是的，我的意思是，我并不完全归咎于股东，因为这实际上是关于法官对特拉华州法律的解释以及公司被允许做什么的问题。所以，无论股东是否受到损害，无论他持有一股还是一百万股，这只是这个案件被提到法庭的方式。问题在于对特拉华州法律的解释。
And again, the part of this I would go back to that that I think was the mistake is that I think the shareholder vote was valid. I think the process was valid as well. I don't know that the process has to be this extremely adversarial process. One side's pulling for the most, one side's pulling for the least. I don't think either side operate that way. But again, I think shareholders knew what they needed to know. And the evidence of that is in all of the public coverage at that time, nobody thought Elon was getting a good deal. Right? No one thought he was getting so good. They thought he was getting a delusional deal, meaning delusional for him. And everybody seemed to be okay with the idea that if somehow Elon could pull off this miracle that he would be entitled to this compensation and he would get nothing if he didn't.
再说一次，我认为这其中我会回到我认为是个错误的部分就是我认为股东投票是有效的。我也认为这个过程是有效的。我不认为这个过程必须是这么极端对抗的过程。一方争取更多，一方争取更少。我不认为双方都是这样操作的。但是，我认为股东知道他们需要知道的。证据就在当时所有的公众报道中，没有人觉得伊隆得到了一个好交易。对吧？没有人认为他得到了那么好的交易。他们认为他得到了一个痴心妄想的交易，也就是对他来说是痴心妄想的交易。而且似乎每个人都对这样一个想法很满意，即如果伊隆能够实现这个奇迹，他就有权获得这笔报酬，否则他将一无所得。
Now, again, I would go back to do you think Mary Barrow would have wanted this deal while Elon was spending the last five, six years making Tesla go 10x. Let's look at GM. GM stock price was trading more or less in a flat range. I don't even think this share price doubled. Compare it to you see to compare to button there, but compare to and then put Tesla in there. Right.
现在，再次说起，我会回到你觉得Mary Barra在过去的五六年里，当Elon花费时间使得特斯拉的价值增加十倍之时，会希望这笔交易吗？让我们来看一下GM。GM股价基本上在一个水平范围内交易。我甚至觉得这个股价没有翻倍。与之相对比的是你可以看到按钮上的比较，但是请将特斯拉也放进去参考一下。
So if Mary Barrow GM had signed up for that comp package, she would have gotten absolutely nothing, which is why I'm sure that the thought in everyone crossed her mind of having an all incentive based comp package that doesn't even start until you at least double the value of the company. By the way, on those milestones, it wasn't just the share price. It was share price and revenue or profit targets being met. So in other words, if the stock just rallied because of macroeconomic conditions, like, for example, interest rates go down and then all of a sudden the whole stock market goes up, that was not good enough. It was also tied to the combination of stock value increases with revenue and profit targets being met. It was a compact because that couldn't be gained. I mean, you have to hit the numbers in order to get the comp package. That's what she got. And I don't want to pick too much on Mary Barrow here. I guess I'm picking her out because Joe Biden said that she created the EV revolution. Well done. They sold 17 cars. They canceled the car. Yeah. Congratulations. There was a remarkable article in the Wall Street Journal just in December, where they finally admitted that this whole idea that GM had been leading any kind of revolution or had been a transformational company was revealed as basically a ruse.
所以，如果玛丽·巴罗(JM)签署了那个竞争方案，她将一无所获，这就是为什么我敢肯定每个人都曾考虑过只有在公司价值至少翻倍之后才开始的纯激励性竞争方案。顺便说一句，在那些里程碑上，不仅仅是股价的问题，还与收入或利润目标的实现有关。换句话说，如果股票仅仅因为宏观经济状况，比如利率下降，然后整个股市突然上涨，那是不够的。股票价值的增长还必须与收入和利润目标的实现相结合。这是一个紧密结合的协议，因为这是无法规避的。我的意思是，你必须达到数字才能获得竞争方案。这就是她得到的。我并不想过多地挑剔玛丽·巴罗。我之所以选择挑选她，是因为乔·拜登说她创造了电动汽车革命。干得好。他们卖出了17辆车。他们取消了这款车。是的，恭喜。《华尔街日报》在去年12月刊登了一篇非凡的文章，终于承认GM一直领导着任何革命或者成为一个有转型能力的公司的想法只是一个伪装。
But look, you have to wonder how much of this is political. I mean, Delaware is Joe Biden's state. He's the senator. There were articles describing how this judge was connected to a law firm that had helped Joe Biden get elected. And you just kind of wonder whether Biden's directive from the White House podium that we got to get this guy or we got to look into this guy that he's an enemy, which has been reflected through all of these different administrative agencies, sudden actions against Elon's companies for the glass house, Starlink and the FCC. Yeah. There've been a whole bunch of these issues. And you just wonder is this another manifestation of that?
但是你要想一想，其中又有多少是出于政治考量呢？我的意思是，特拉华州是乔·拜登的州，他是参议员。有文章描述了这位法官与一家帮助乔·拜登当选的律所有关联。你不禁会想，拜登是否在白宫讲台上下达了指令，要我们对付这个人或者调查这个人，说他是敌人，这种指令似乎在所有这些不同的行政机构中都有所体现，这些机构对马斯克的公司（例如玻璃屋、星链和联邦通信委员会）采取突然的行动。是的，关于这些问题确实存在许多争议，你不免会想这是否是该情况的另一种表现呢？
Yeah. I mean, the conspiracy theories are quickly coming closer to reality. And we definitely need to investigate that for sure, because the FCC thing is crazy, spending $15,000 putting fiber into people's songs when you could spend $1,500 giving them Starlink makes no sense. And the same people who have to wait for a fiber, that's on a previous episode, they're going to get Starlink anyway. They're going to buy Starlink while they're waiting for the government fiber for 10 years. It's absurd.
是的，我的意思是，阴谋论正在迅速接近现实。我们绝对需要对此进行调查，因为FCC的事情太疯狂了，他们花费15000美元将光纤引到人们的家中，而事实上你只需要花1500美元就能给他们提供Starlink服务。而那些不得不等待光纤的同一批人，他们等待政府提供的光纤已经等了10年了，他们实际上也会购买Starlink服务。这太荒谬了。
I do want to up level this just back to what I was saying. And I'll try to make the point better. I think it's really, really unfair what's happening to Elon. But I want to take a step back and think about just the bigger picture. If we want an economy of vibrant companies that do great things, we're going to need to reward people to work at those companies. And in order for the United States to sort of continue to exert some amount of dominance in the areas that we think are important, we need to be economically vibrant, right?
我确实想把之前我说的那个事情做一个升级。我会尽量更清楚地表达。我认为埃隆（马斯克）所遭遇的事情真的非常不公平。但同时，我想退一步思考整体的大局。如果我们想要有一个充满活力、做出伟大事业的经济体系，我们需要奖励那些在这些公司工作的人。为了让美国在我们认为重要的领域继续保持一定程度的支配地位，我们需要经济上充满活力，对吧？
And fair and fair. And the problem is that this really perverts incentives. And it's going to exacerbate a trend that I think has actually held a bunch of our companies back. So the first thing I just wanted to show you guys was just this little thing that it's just a pie chart that shows, okay, how do CEOs get paid, right? So we want CEOs to go and run really important companies, right? We want those companies to do great things in the world. We want these CEOs to be deeply motivated to go and push the boundaries of what's possible, right? We want all that. And so we want to compensate them to do those things. This is just a representation of how CEOs have structured their pay packages. And you'd say, wow, all of these numbers seem reasonable. Return on capital, total shareholder return earnings per share.
而且公平。问题在于这实际上扭曲了激励机制。它将加剧一种趋势，我认为这实际上阻碍了我们许多公司的发展。所以首先我只想给大家展示一件小事，一个饼图，它展示了CEO们的薪酬是如何组成的，对吧？我们希望CEO去管理非常重要的公司，对吧？我们希望这些公司在世界上做出伟大的成就。我们希望这些CEO们深受激励，不断挑战可能性的界限，对吧？我们都希望这些。因此，我们希望为他们提供相应的报酬来完成这些任务。这只是CEO们的薪酬结构的一种表示。你会说，哇，所有这些数字都合理。资本回报率、股东总回报率、每股收益。
So what you need to do then is double click into this, right? So this is how CEO pay packages are made. But the problem is, and Jason, this is my problem with a bunch of these companies that all the returns, all that shareholder return that you saw the return, it's all driven by share buybacks. This is an artificial gamesmanship of performance. This is not companies pushing the boundaries. You know, this is not Disney figuring out how to innovate. This is this is this is Disney creating foot faults and falling into potholes of their own making. But you can drive great compensation because you can game the way that you are paid. This doesn't make America great. It doesn't create American exceptionalism. In fact, it just creates a bunch of financial engineering that results in marginal companies. And David just gave an example of one that could be considered that.
那么你接下来需要做的就是双击进入这个选项，对吧？这就是CEO收入套餐的制定方式。但问题是，杰森，我对于这些公司的一大问题是，所有的回报、股东回报，都是由回购股票推动的。这是一种人为的绩效游戏。这并不是公司在不断突破边界。你知道的，这不是迪士尼在寻找创新的方式。这只是迪士尼制造的错误和自己掉入的陷阱。但你可以获得巨额报酬，因为你可以操控你的薪酬方式。这并不使美国变得伟大。它不会创造美国的例外性。事实上，它只是创造了一堆金融工程，导致了边缘型公司的出现。大卫刚刚给出了一个可能被认为如此的例子。
So the point is that when you have one person that tries to buck this trend, I just think it has a huge impact by basically saying, hey, play the game like everybody else. Just game it, just dial it in from your country club. Make sure that you become a member of Augusta. That's more important to us than actually sleeping on the factory floor. And don't take risk. I mean, if you think about what do you do if you're Apple, you're Google, you're Microsoft, you're sitting on tons of cash, the safe thing to do, you see what they do. You just buy back the shares. You can't do M&A. You issue debt. Yes. And then you buy back the shares arbitrage. You encumber the shareholders with debt. And then you artificially inflate total shareholder return and earnings per share and the return on an invested capital because of how we can play these games in America. So right now, what we are doing is we are not motivating CEOs to run great companies. We're motivated to understand financial arbitrage. The result will be crappier companies that diminish American exceptionalism. That is the only outcome.
所以重点在于，当你有一个人试图去改变这种趋势时，我认为这会产生巨大影响，基本上就是在说：“嘿，像每个人一样玩这个游戏吧。只是玩一下，从你的俱乐部中来作弊。确保你成为奥古斯塔的一员。 这对我们来说比在工厂车间里工作更重要。而且不要冒险。比如，如果你是苹果、谷歌、微软这样的公司，手头有大量现金，安全的做法是参考他们的做法。你只需要回购股份。你不能进行并购，你发行债务。是的。然后你回购股份进行套利。你让股东背负债务。然后人为地提高总股东回报率、每股收益和投资回报率，因为我们在美国如何玩这些游戏。所以现在，我们所做的是，我们不鼓励CEO们经营优秀的企业，我们只关心金融套利。结果将是品质更差的企业，削弱了美国的非凡地位。这是唯一的结果。
Perfect, we said, and there really are two caveats there. Number one, we have to let M&A occur as well, because that's a better thing to do in some cases with this excess capital profits people have sitting there. And the only time really to buy shares back is when you think they're under value. You would agree. Well, to your point, I actually think you're absolutely right. If you have a bunch of CEOs that don't know what they're doing, which is what these charts kind of show, let them buy whatever they want, because they're going to screw it up. And that's fine for us anyways. So we went for a fluid marketplace. The CEO that you don't want to have be able to buy companies is the actually motivated one to get paid when things go really well and to be more profitable. So that would be the CEO where you would be scared. Oh my gosh, more M&A for that person may be bad. But more M&A for these CEOs is who cares? Yeah, Microsoft starts buying a bunch of stuff. Google starts buying a stuff at their primes. Man, that's scary. Right? When Bill Gates went on a heater, he bought, I think he bought PowerPoint, a bunch of these sweet was bought, not created. And then Google and Facebook, man, they went on heaters, YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp. And that was the golden age of M&A.
完美，我们说完了，确实有两个要点。首先，我们必须允许并购发生，因为在某些情况下，这是处理这些过剩资本利润的更好方式。而且回购股份的唯一时机是在你认为它们被低估时。你会同意这一点。嗯，就你的观点而言，我实际上认为你是完全正确的。如果你有一群不知道自己在做什么的CEO，就像这些图表所显示的那样，就让他们买任何他们想买的东西，因为他们会搞砸。对我们来说，这是没问题的。所以我们希望有一个流动的市场。你不希望那种有能力购买公司的CEO实际上是那种在事情真的很好的时候会得到报酬并且变得更有利可图的CEO。那将是你担心的CEO。哦，天哪，对于那个人来说，更多的并购可能是不好的。但对于这些CEO来说，谁在乎呢？是的，微软开始大量收购。谷歌开始在他们巅峰时期购买东西。嘿，那真可怕。比尔·盖茨走上风口浪尖时，他买了PowerPoint，还有一些很棒的东西，不是自己创造的。然后谷歌和Facebook，他们也走上了风口浪尖，买下了YouTube、Instagram和WhatsApp。那是并购的黄金时代。
All right, we got a couple more things on the docket. I just found these stats. Go ahead, sex, great conversation.
好的，我们还有几件事情要处理。我刚刚找到了这些统计数据。怎么样，你们继续，关于性方面的，很棒的对话。
So just while we were talking, I just looked up what Mary Barra's compensation was over the past several years. And according to this source, she was paid $167 million for four years. So while Elon got zero, thanks to the judge's decision, Mary Barra, basically, if you add in probably the fifth year, let's call it roughly $200 million of compensation over the last five years.
所以在我们谈话期间，我刚刚查询了玛丽·巴拉(Mary Barra)在过去几年里的报酬情况。根据这个消息源，她在四年间获得了1.67亿美元的报酬。所以，尽管埃隆因法官的决定得到了零报酬，但巴拉在过去五年中基本上（如果算上可能的第五年）获得了大约2亿美元的报酬。
Now, look at the stock chart of GM. Literally, it is the same price today as it was five years ago. It's $38 a share today. It was $38 a share five years ago. No, but it's worse. It's probably worse because they've issued options since then. So there's dilution you have to take in. So it's worse than that, actually. But at best, the stock price is flat. And the stock basically fluctuated in line with market trends when there was an asset bubble in 2021. The share price went up up about 50%. And she got even more stock in options during that time. But it was a no-lose proposition, basically. She got paid for Garza how the stock did. And then when there was simply market volatility, she did even better.
现在，看看通用汽车（GM）的股票走势图。从字面上看，今天的股价与五年前的股价相同。今天每股股价是38美元。五年前每股股价也是38美元。不过，情况更糟糕。可能更糟糕是因为它们发行了期权。因此，你必须考虑稀释的影响。实际上，情况比这更糟糕。但最好情况下，股价是持平的。在2021年资产泡沫出现时，股价基本上与市场趋势波动一致。股价上涨了约50%。在那段时间内，她还获得了更多的期权股票。但本质上来说，这是一个无风险的方案。她的报酬取决于股票的表现。而当市场出现波动时，她的表现甚至更好。
One of the nice things about Elon's package is that unless Tesla at least doubled in value, he would get nothing. And it was tied to milestones around revenue and profits. So he couldn't just ride market volatility to getting more comp. If you gave this executive the same deal as Elon, she would have had to doubled $38. So she would have had to get to $70, $60. You should have to get to $80 a share before she got anything. I bet you if she got $1 and her health care and she had to get to $80 a share, I bet you that would be an $80 stock price. Well, I don't know if she has the ability to engineer that outcome. But I doubt. Oh, so she's saying she's unqualified? No. Well, the Wall Street Journal said it. The Wall Street Journal just had this 10-year-old look back where they said that she failed. They're hiding the importance then. Yeah. Well, look, I mean, I don't want to say she's incompetent. I just want to say that the stock price is the same. The Wall Street Journal had an article talking about all her. And she swept $200 million. All of her transformation initiatives have failed. She swept roughly $200 million over just the last five years. I think she's been there 10. So how was she in charge? She's probably made several hundred million dollars. And the company hasn't created any value for shareholders. So how is she still in charge?
埃隆（特斯拉公司的首席执行官）的报酬方案中有一个好处就是，除非特斯拉的市值至少翻倍，否则他将一无所获。并且这个报酬方案与收入和利润的里程碑绑定在一起。因此他不能仅仅依靠市场波动来获取更多的报酬。如果给这位高管与埃隆相同的报酬，她将不得不翻倍38美元，这意味着她必须达到70或者60美元，只有当股价达到80美元时，她才能从中受益。我打赌，如果她的薪酬是1美元，并且她必须使股价达到80美元，那么这个股票价格一定会达到80美元。嗯，我不知道她是否有能力实现这一目标。但我怀疑。哦，所以她在说她不称职？不是的。那么《华尔街日报》这么说的。《华尔街日报》最近回顾了她过去10年的情况，称她失败了。他们在掩盖重要性。是的。看，我不想说她不称职。我只想说股价一样的情况下，《华尔街日报》有一篇文章谈到了她的情况。她在过去五年间赚取了大约2亿美元。我想她在那里待了10年左右。那她怎么能掌管公司？她可能赚了几亿美元。而公司为股东创造的价值几乎为零。那她怎么还能继续掌管公司呢？
Just Jason, this is the way the Fortune 500 works. It's a country club. Who gets appointed to these companies? These companies are not run by founders. They're not even run by VCs or series skin of the game. The kind of directors that this judge didn't like, it's run by people who play the game. They basically are on other boards. And it's basically a back-scattering club. And they choose the CEO, they choose someone who's politically savvy, who's worked their way up through the system, who donates to the right people, who can get Joe Biden to come to a factory and talk about how great they are and hold an EV Summit at the White House and invent this fiction that they were responsible for this innovation. This is basically how the system works. So correct. I'm glad that women have been admitted to this country club. It is still a country club. It is still a back-scattering club. It is basically a collection of people who don't create any value, but pay themselves an enormous amounts of money, hop now at the right people and work their way in with the powers that be at the White House, who then talk about how great they are, while actually accomplishing nothing. Nothing. Zero point zero.
杰森，这就是财富500强的工作方式。这是个乡村俱乐部。谁被任命到这些公司呢？这些公司不是由创始人来经营的。也不是由风险投资者或者只做了点表面工作的VC们来经营。这位法官不喜欢的那种董事会成员，事实上是由那些惯于玩弄权术的人来管理的。他们基本上都在其他董事会中任职。这实际上是个内部互相推荐的俱乐部。他们选择CEO的时候，会选择那些精于政治的人，他们通过系统的途径一步步晋升，捐款给“权门”人士，能够邀请乔·拜登到工厂参观，并举办在白宫的电动汽车峰会，编造一个他们对这个创新负责的虚构故事。这基本上是这个体制运作的方式。所以说得对。我很高兴女性已被允许进入这个乡村俱乐部。但它仍然是一个乡村俱乐部。仍然是个内部互相推荐的俱乐部。基本上是一群不创造任何价值，却给自己拿着巨额薪水的人的集合体，他们在正确的人面前装模作样，并与白宫的有权者搞好关系，然后这些有权者会谈论他们有多么伟大，而实际上他们什么也没做。什么也没做。零点零。
I think the common through line in these two conversations we've had this morning is about just how capitalism can be perverted, if you will, by a small group of actors. In the first example, I think what we were talking about is the trial lawyers association and their ability to impact and influence what is going to happen around Section 230. And in this example, I think what it speaks to is the influence that a small group of consultants can have in having built a very thriving business in designing these compensation plans for CEOs. And it reminds me of a clip of Buffett and Munger and Nick, if you just want to play it, I think they say it in very clear plain English, and not to debate their opinion, just to state it, but Nick, if you want to play it.
我觉得我们今早进行的这两次对话中的共同线索是关于资本主义如何被一小群人滥用的问题。在第一个例子中，我认为我们讨论的是诉讼律师协会及其对第230条款周围事态发展的影响和影响力。而在这个例子中，我认为它所表达的是一小群顾问在为首席执行官设计薪酬计划方面取得了巨大成功并产生了影响力。这让我想起了巴菲特、芒格和尼克在一段视频中的讲话，如果你愿意播放一下，他们用非常清晰简明的英语表达了自己的观点，而不是为了辩论，只是陈述观点，尼克，如果你愿意播放一下。
We do not bring in compensation consultants. We don't have a human relations department. The headquarters, as you could see, we don't have any human relations department. We don't have a legal department. We don't have a public relations department. We don't have an investor relations department. We don't have those things because they make life way more complicated, and everybody gets a vested interest in going to conferences and calling another consultants, and it takes on a life of its own.
我们不会聘请补偿顾问。我们没有人力资源部门。正如你所见，我们总部没有人力资源部门。我们没有法律部门。我们没有公共关系部门。我们没有投资者关系部门。我们没有这些部门，因为它们会让生活变得更加复杂，每个人都会对参加会议和与其他顾问联系产生兴趣，它会演变成一种自己的生活方式。
Well, I would rather throw a viper down my shirt front than hire a compensation consultant. Tell me which kind of consultants you actually like, truly. Oh, man. Waldorf and Staller, you know, from the month it sacks. You might be a Staller Waldorf, Larry. Yeah.
嗯，我宁愿把一条毒蛇扔进我的衣襟，也不愿意雇佣一个赔偿顾问。告诉我你真正喜欢哪种顾问吧。哦，天啊。你知道的，来自被解雇的那个月份的 Waldorf 和 Staller。你可能是个 Staller Waldorf，Larry。是的。
Well, you mentioned Grumpy. You mentioned this is a problem in capitalism. I think there's two kinds of capitalism, broadly speaking. There's crony capitalism, and there's risk capitalism. Risk capitalism is the founder who starts with nothing but an idea, along with the investors who are willing to write a check, knowing that nine times out of 10, it's going to be a zero, but maybe in that one out of 10 chance, it's going to be an outsized return. That is true risk capitalism. Everyone has skin of the game. They work together, entrepreneur, board members to try and create a great outcome, and they work out an arrangement where everyone benefits. It's a win-win situation. Okay. That is risk capitalism. That's the part of our economy that drives all the innovation, all of the progress, all of the job creation.
好的，你提到了Gumpy。你提到这是资本主义的一个问题。我认为，广义上来说，有两种资本主义。一种是裙带资本主义，另一种是风险资本主义。风险资本主义是指那些从零开始只有一个想法的创始人，以及愿意签写支票的投资者，他们知道十次中有九次的可能会一事无成，但也许在那十分之一的机会中，会获得超过预期的回报。这就是真正的风险资本主义。每个人都有风险承担的意识。企业家、董事会成员共同努力，试图创造良好的结果，并达成一项让每个人受益的安排。这是一种双赢的局面。就是这种风险资本主义推动着我们经济中的所有创新、进步和就业机会的创造。
Then you got crony capitalism. You got these companies that have been around for 100 years. The value was created by people long dead, and it is now managed by both directors and professional managers who work their way up through. They go to like the right business schools, and they join the right organizations, and they donate the right politicians, and they somehow engineer a situation where they get in control, and then they pay themselves as much comp as they can possibly justify whether or not they create any value for this shareholder. That's what we saw at GM. That's crony capitalism. While they're doing it, the president's son is probably going to figure out a way to take a nice big chunk out of it too. That's the system that we have. I'm calling the great.
然后你会看到裙带资本主义。有些公司已经存在了100年。其价值是由早已逝去的人们创造的，现在由董事会和职业经理人来管理。他们通过就读正确的商学院、加入正确的组织、向正确的政治家捐款等方式逐渐晋升。他们以任何方式都能自圆其说地给自己领取尽可能多的补偿，无论是否为股东创造任何价值。这就是我们在GM看到的情况，这就是裙带资本主义。在他们这么做的同时，总统的儿子也可能会找到一种方式来分一大块蛋糕。这就是我们现在的制度。我称之为伟大。
Here we go. Now, which of these two systems receives the brunt of the criticism by the mainstream media? Who is attacked and who is celebrated? Yeah. There we go. There's your rent. It's a great point. I've seen a zillion attacks on Elon Musk. I saw one article pointing out that all of Mary Bear's transformation in General Motors was a failure, created no value for shareholders, and the whole thing was basically a fraud. How's the union doing, and how did the union be found? One article. I'm frankly shocked that the Wall Street Journal even ran that article. Yeah. How did the union do? Who did the union get behind and vote for? Maybe we'd double click on a couple items. We'll see.
这里我们开始。现在，这两个系统中，哪一个受到了主流媒体最多的批评？谁受到攻击，谁受到赞美？是的，没错。你的意见很好。我看到了许多关于埃隆·马斯克的攻击。我看到一篇文章指出，玛丽·贝尔领导下的通用汽车的整改全都是失败的、对股东毫无价值的，整个事情基本上是一场骗局。工会的情况如何？是如何成立的？一篇文章。我真的很震惊《华尔街日报》居然刊登了那篇文章。是的。工会的成绩如何？工会支持并投票选谁了？也许我们需要更深入地了解几个方面。我们看看吧。
All right. Listen, I wanted to go over one more thing. We're cooking with Loyl here, and I just wanted to talk a little bit about IPOs possibly coming back. I just interviewed Alexis O'Hanny and the founder of Reddit, which according to Bloomberg, they've been advised by potential IPO investors to target a $5 billion valuation. They're going to go public possibly in March, which is wild. That's only a couple of weeks away. In peak, Zirp Reddit had raised at a $10 billion valuation. That was back in 2021. They were valued in $15 billion in the secondary market. That's where people like previous employees, angel investors, etc, might trade their shares.
好的。听着，我想再谈一件事。我们在与Loyl一起做饭，我只是想谈谈可能回归的首次公开募股（IPO）。我刚刚采访了Alexis O'Hanny和Reddit的创始人，据彭博社报道，潜在的IPO投资者已经建议他们以50亿美元的估值为目标。他们可能会在三月份上市，这太疯狂了。就在2021年，Reddit在顶峰时估值达到100亿美元。他们在二级市场上估值达到150亿美元。在那里，以前的员工、天使投资者等可能交易他们的股份。
If it goes out of $5, it's going to be between a 50% to their tear cut, and it is trading at $4.5 billion. Chamamal, we talked about this a bunch, the down-around IPOs. Instagram, I think, being the best example. They got out, but they've been hovering at a really low number for a long time. People have been talking about them possibly being a take-out candidate by Dordash or Amazon or Hoover.
如果股价低于5美元，那将意味着它的市值将大幅下降，可能会在45%附近。该公司目前的市值为45亿美元。尚马马尔，我们曾多次讨论关于Initial Public Offerings(IPOs)颓势的问题。Instagram是一个很好的例子。他们曾经上市，但股价一直徘徊在一个非常低的水平上。有人一直在讨论他们可能会被DoorDash、亚马逊或胡佛收购。
Your thoughts on the Reddit IPOs? I think that if I had to price the IPO, I would be modeling two important levers in the business. The first is, what is the actual attainable revenue from my audience? What is the ARPU of the average Reddit user? You can model it as a distribution. I think Facebook has the best data because they've been publishing it in their quarterly returns for a very long time now, for over a decade, which is there is a distribution of value of a Facebook user economically. At the upper end, you have the folks that are on Facebook proper in America in a certain age band in certain states that are probably like $30, $40, $50 ARPUs. All the way down to developing countries, those users are worth low single-digit dollars economically. I think that people will have to very much understand what is the average Reddit user and what is the distribution of economic value that they represent? That's the first thing. I think that that's really the thing that will determine whether it's worth $5 billion or $10 billion or $2 billion.
你对Reddit的首次公开募股有何看法？我认为，如果我必须定价这次首次公开募股，我会对两个业务关键因素进行建模分析。首先，我的受众能够实际创造多少收入？平均每个Reddit用户的平均收入是多少？你可以将其视为一个分布。我认为Facebook拥有最好的数据，因为他们在过去很长一段时间内一直在季度报告中公布这些数据，已经超过十年了。Facebook用户的经济价值存在一定的分布。在较高端，你会看到在美国特定年龄段和特定州份的正式Facebook用户的ARPU可能达到30美元、40美元、50美元等。而在发展中国家，这些用户的经济价值可能只有几美元。我认为人们将必须非常了解平均的Reddit用户以及他们所代表的经济价值的分布。这是第一点。我认为这将真正决定Reddit的市值是50亿美元、100亿美元还是20亿美元。
Then the second key lever, it will be the risk factors in the IPO because where the shareholder lawsuits will come from, which will really dictate how the hedge fund community buys this thing, is going to be the potential for my ad ran against content that is deeply offensive to me, that whole construct. I think that they are going to have to very carefully ring fence that liability to get this IPO to be successful, but also for them to execute a scaled ad revenue business and not spending enough time on Reddit. I don't know how bad of a problem this is. I don't think it's 4chan or 8chan as an example, but I also don't think it's Facebook and Instagram. It's somewhere in the middle. I think that those risks are really what's going to determine its terminal valuation.
然后第二个关键因素是IPO中的风险因素，因为股东诉讼将会从这些风险因素中产生，决定了对冲基金界如何购买这个东西，它将是我的广告与我深感冒犯的内容进行对抗的潜力，整个构想。我认为他们需要非常小心地限制这种责任，才能使这次IPO成功，同时也要实施一个规模化的广告收入业务，并不花太多时间在Reddit上。我不知道这个问题有多严重。我不认为它像4chan或8chan那样严重，但我也不认为它像Facebook和Instagram那样严重。它介于中间。我认为这些风险将真正决定它的最终估值。
You know that they have always been under monetized, $800 million in revenue reportedly and $400 million monthly active user, so $2 a user compared to 2030, 40 for the prime users on Facebook's network. It's totally underutilized. Part of it is, it's a little bit of spicy content. Part of it is that that's the number including all the international users. Of course, there is this concept that Reddit has the greatest pool of data for large language models. It's something like say Quora, YouTube, amongst the great pools of data. You think there's a play here with that? They have talked about, they want to get paid for licensing and that if you want to use their data for your language money, you got to get permission to your thoughts, Max?
你知道他们一直被低估了，据报道收入达8亿美元，每月活跃用户达4亿，因此每个用户只有2美元的收入，而Facebook的核心用户每个人则为2030人，而最主要的用户为40人。这完全是资源被浪费了。其中一部分原因是内容有些辣眼睛。另一部分原因是这个数字包括了所有国际用户在内。当然，Reddit被认为是最大的大语言模型数据池之一。它就像Quora和YouTube那样，拥有庞大的数据资源。你认为这方面有什么机会吗？他们曾谈到过想要通过许可收费，如果你想使用他们的数据来发展自己的语言模型，你需要获得许可，你怎么想，Max？
Sure. That's going to be an incremental revenue source for sure. It's hard to know exactly how valuable that is because we're still in the early innings, but they can definitely do something with that data. Grox, whole competitive advantage, is having exclusive access to Twitter's data, which is updated in real time basically by hundreds of millions of users. That data is valuable. We don't know how much. I guess the numbers I saw were that they're doing about 800 million of revenue growing about 20% a year. The $5 billion valuation seems pretty good. I mean, is it down from 10 at the peak in 2021? Sure, but everything is down since that peak. That was definitely a bubble. I can tell you, we bought some shares as a late stage investment. I think in 2018, at a $2 billion valuation, so a 2.5x in five years. It's not saying the world on fire, but it's not a bad outcome. The investment bankers will know how to price this to take it out and make it successful. If it becomes a billion dollars in revenue and you have a 20% profit margin, 200 million, you can start doing your back of the envelope math there for a 25 e-bita 20 times price earnings ratio. It doesn't seem outrageous. It does seem like such valuable and under-monetized asset.
当然，这肯定是一个渐增的收入来源。由于我们仍处于早期阶段，很难确定它的价值，但他们肯定可以利用那些数据做些什么。Grox的竞争优势在于独家访问Twitter的数据，该数据由数亿用户实时更新。这些数据是有价值的，虽然我们并不知道具体价值是多少。我猜我看到的数字是，他们每年的营收约为8亿美元，增长约20%。50亿美元的估值似乎相当不错。我是说，在2021年高峰时期，它是从10亿美元下跌至5亿美元估值的，但自那时以来一切都下跌了。那绝对是一个泡沫。我可以告诉你，我们作为后期投资买入了一些股份。我记得在2018年以20亿美元的估值买入，所以在五年内是2.5倍回报。它并没有惊艳世界，但也不是一个糟糕的结果。投资银行家们会知道如何定价并使其成功脱身。如果它的营收达到10亿美元，利润率为20%，那也就是2亿美元，你可以开始简单计算一下25倍的EBITA和20倍的市盈率。这看起来并不过分。它确实是一项如此有价值且未充分利用的资产。
Do you think there's likely a query here if you were to think about somebody who might want to own this? Do you think it's a Microsoft or the data, Google for the data? Yeah, I think there's probably people who would like to own this, but the problem is that, well, two problems. One is they just can't get it through. We've talked about this before. The M&A window is even more closed than the IPO window, I would say.
如果你考虑一下可能想拥有这个的人，你认为这里可能有一个查询吗？你认为是微软对数据感兴趣，还是谷歌对数据感兴趣？是的，我想可能有人想拥有这个，但问题是有两个。其一是他们无法完成交易。我们之前谈论过这个。我认为并购窗口甚至比IPO窗口更加关闭。
And the other thing is just because of the Raunchy content and all of the brand issues that come with that, it's not clear to me that, let's say a Microsoft would want to own that headache. They might not want to be hauled up in front of these congressional hearings that we talked about these kangaroo courts where it's very easy to go on Reddit and pick out, well, what about this post? What about that post? Why'd you let that one through? Why'd you let that one through? Well, because it's a platform of user-generated content where hundreds of millions of people post what billions of items, and you can have the best content moderation policy in the world. There's always going to be edge cases that get through. I think that Reddit is the honeypot of edge cases. It is the place you go when you're just so disaffected that you can just let loose anonymously.
另外一个问题是，由于低俗内容和与此相关的品牌问题，我不清楚微软这样的公司是否愿意承担这种麻烦。他们可能不想被传唤到我们之前谈到的国会听证会上，在这些被称为袋鼠法庭的地方面对质问。在Reddit上很容易找到，比如说这篇帖子怎么样？那篇帖子呢？你们为什么允许通过这一篇？你们为什么允许通过那一篇？嗯，因为Reddit是一个用户生成内容的平台，数以亿计的人发布了数以十亿计的帖子，即使你拥有世界上最好的内容审核政策，总会有一些极端案例通过审核。我认为Reddit就是这些极端案例的蜜罐。当你对一切都感到失望，可以匿名地放飞自我时，你会来到这个地方。
It's not. I mean, at a certain point, you have to realize that when people cherry pick those edge cases, what they're really saying is a platform like this shouldn't exist. Because there's no way to eliminate every single one. Which is basically like saying, if you just take platform or you say conversation, you're saying this conversation shouldn't be allowed to exist. They don't want user-generated content to exist. They don't want what, remember within your times, called unfettered conversations. Unfettered conversations. They want controlled conversations.
这并不是这样。我的意思是，在某个程度上，你必须意识到，当人们挑出那些个别情况时，他们真正想表达的是这样的一个平台不应该存在。因为没有办法消除每一个案例。这实际上就像是在说，如果你只是参与平台或者说参与对话，那么你就是在说这种对话不应该被允许存在。他们不希望存在用户生成的内容。他们不希望像你在过去所谈论的那种自由对话。自由对话。他们想要受控制的对话。
Yeah. Yeah. Pretty dangerous. It just reminds me of, remember Bob Iger for like 10 seconds was actually considering Disney buying Twitter. Can you imagine if they actually bought it? What would have happened? I mean, it would have been chaos. Well, it would have been content moderation on steroids where they would have massively empowered and scaled up content moderation even more than what Jack Dorsey's Twitter was doing. I think Jack actually, he was unable to operationalize his principles, but he did have principles in favor of free speech to some degree. Absolutely. Yeah. Whereas Disney, I don't even think has those principles. And so they would have censored everything.
是的。是的。相当危险。它只是让我联想到，还记得当时鲍勃·伊格（Bob Iger）实际上考虑过迪士尼购买Twitter的可能性吗？你能想象如果他们真的买下来会发生什么吗？我的意思是，那将是一片混乱。嗯，那将是超强版的内容管理，他们会大规模授权和扩大内容管理，比杰克·多尔西（Jack Dorsey）的Twitter更加强大。我认为杰克实际上无法将他的原则转化为操作，但他确实在一定程度上支持言论自由。绝对是。是的。而迪士尼，我甚至不认为他们持有这些原则。所以他们会对一切进行审查。
Yeah. It's paradoxically the most censored social media platform is TikTok. Like my TikTok is bulldogs and sandwiches like you, Chumath, and then sopranos clips. And every time this is sopranos clips, when somebody gets whacked, they have to blur it out or the person who's uploading it takes that clip and cuts out the actual person being whacked. It's crazy.
是的。很矛盾的是，最受审查的社交媒体平台是抖音。像我的抖音上有法国斗牛犬和三明治，就像你一样，Chumath，还有《黑道家族》的片段。但每次出现《黑道家族》的片段，并且有人被击杀时，他们必须打马赛克，或者上传者会将那段片段剪辑掉实际被击杀的人。这太疯狂了。
All right. I got to give Saks his red meat. We're going to now go to our war correspondent, David Saks, but in all seriousness, tragically, we had a terrorist attack. And the response from some of our Republican senators was absolutely insane. They want to bomb Tehran and go after Iran and start World War three. Saks, I know you have some strong feelings on this and you're always about diplomacy and pursuing peace. Which are reaction to Lindsey Graham and the neocons?
好的，我得给Saks抛个媚眼。现在我们要转向我们的战地记者David Saks，但是说真的，可悲的是我们发生了一起恐怖袭击事件。而一些共和党参议员的反应绝对是疯狂的。他们想轰炸德黑兰，打击伊朗，引发第三次世界大战。Saks，我知道你对此有一些强烈的感触，你始终主张外交和追求和平。你对林赛·格雷厄姆和新保守派的反应是什么？
Well, you had several Republican senators try to go Biden into striking Iran immediately. It was not just Lindsey Graham, it was in favor of every war, but it was Mitch McConnell, it was the Senate Republican leader, John Cornyn. And there were some other ones who were demanding immediate retaliatory strikes. It's very unfortunate that we had three of our troops killed and another dozen or so get injured. This was at a base on the border between Syria and Jordan.
嗯，有几位共和党参议员试图让拜登立即对伊朗采取行动。不仅是林赛·格雷厄姆一直倾向参与每场战争，还有米奇·麦康奈尔，参议院共和党领袖，约翰·科尼，并有一些其他人要求立即进行报复性打击。很不幸，我们有三名士兵在边境地区的叙利亚和约旦之间的一个基地被杀，另外还有十几人受伤。
Some of us have been saying that we have no business being in Syria. I mean, I tweeted 10 months ago that all we were doing was putting our troops in harm's way and risking getting drawn into a larger conflagration. And that's exactly where we are right now. I mean, you had to know and many commentators pointed out that these bases are very exposed. They're very vulnerable. They don't have good enough air defense against they don't really have a good answer to the swarms of drones that these local militias have.
我们中的一些人一直在说我们没有理由在叙利亚存在。我的意思是，10个月前我发推特说我们所做的只是把我们的军队置于危险之中，并冒着卷入更大冲突的风险。而现在我们正处于这种局面。我的意思是，你必须知道，很多评论家也指出这些基地非常容易受到攻击，它们的防空能力不足，也没有办法有效应对当地民兵使用的无人机的攻击。
And based on the intelligence we have right now, our this base is tower 22 is attacked by an Iraqi militia that's operating there. Why did they get attacked? Well, these militias want the United States out of their countries. They want them out of Iraq. The government of Iraq has said we want the US out of Iraq. The government of Syria says we want you out of Syria. We are there without a congressional authorization for military force.
根据我们当前掌握的情报，我们的第22号塔基地受到了一支在该地区活动的伊拉克民兵组织的袭击。为什么会被攻击呢？因为这些民兵组织希望驱逐美国人离开他们的国家，他们想要美国人离开伊拉克。伊拉克政府表示我们希望美国人离开伊拉克。叙利亚政府表示我们希望你们离开叙利亚。我们在未经国会授权的情况下驻扎在那里。
I mean, what are we doing in Syria? We're just occupying that country without again, without a war being ever declared against the Assad regime. So some of us have been saying we need to get out of there for some time. And if we don't, it's inevitable that something like this is going to happen. And sure enough, it did.
我的意思是，我们在叙利亚做什么呢？我们只是占领那个国家，根本没有发动过战争来反对阿萨德政权。所以我们中的一些人一直在说我们需要尽快撤出那里。如果我们不这样做，这样的事情必然会发生。果然，它发生了。
And when it does happen, you get this lunatic fringe, unfortunately, or some of the leaders of the Republican Party calling for a larger war against Iran. And I think Biden to his credit has so far held back. And he has not a lot of restraint, a lot of some restraint. However, they've been actually talking about this and all the reports are they're gaming this out. And there is going to be some sort of retaliatory strike. It might be focused on these militias in Syria and Iraq. It could be attacking Iranian assets. We don't know if they do attack Iranian assets, Iran has promised a response.
而当这种情况发生时，不幸的是，你会看到这些疯狂的边缘人，或者共和党的一些领导人呼吁对伊朗发动更大规模的战争。我认为拜登至今没有采取行动，这值得赞扬。他有所克制，但没有完全克制。然而，他们实际上一直在讨论这个问题，所有的报告都说他们正在制定计划。会有某种形式的报复打击。可能会集中于对叙利亚和伊拉克的民兵组织进行打击，也可能会攻击伊朗的资产。如果他们真的攻击伊朗的资产，伊朗已经承诺会做出回应，我们无法确定回应的形式。
So I think the Biden presidency is a little bit of a crossroads here, depending on the action they choose, we could very rapidly find ourselves engaged in a wider regional war on five different fronts. I mean, a war with Iran would involve us in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, where we're already bombing. So this could turn into a huge conflagration in the Middle East.
所以我认为拜登总统的任期在某种程度上是个十字路口，取决于他们的行动选择，我们可能会很快陷入在中东五个不同战线上的一场更广泛的地区战争。我的意思是，与伊朗的战争将让我们卷入伊朗、伊拉克、叙利亚、黎巴嫩和也门，而我们已经在也门进行轰炸。因此，这可能演变成中东的一场巨大的大火灾。
Yeah, I don't think I should be drawn into this. Yeah, no, we'd answer here. And the craziness to me, to jump off is like, these people want to go bomb Tehran because you have some militias doing these activities. I mean, this would be some terrorist who's French and we're going to just blow up Paris and a bunch of civilians are going to die. There's no proportionality here and there's no direct relationship here. It's like two or three steps removed.
是的，我觉得我不应该卷入这件事。是的，不，我们会在这里回答。对我来说，这种疯狂就像是，这些人想要轰炸德黑兰，因为一些民兵组织进行了这些活动。我的意思是，这就像是一个法国的恐怖分子，我们要炸毁巴黎，一大群平民将会死亡。这里没有比例，也没有直接关联。就像是相隔了两三步。
What do you have brought to your mouth? I think the thing that we've lost in this whole issue is, how is it possible that a multi-decabillion dollar drone system was designed by the military industrial complex in a way where when one of our drones is coming back and there's an inbound drone, that doesn't seem like a weird edge case where we couldn't handle it? Because at the root cause of what happened was a pretty faulty way in which we were dealing with confusion about what was our drone and what was the enemy drone.
你们嘴里放了什么东西？我认为我们在整个问题中失去的是，为什么一个价值数万亿美元的无人机系统会被军工复合体设计成这样一种方式，在我们的一架无人机返回时，有一架飞来的无人机，这似乎不是一个我们无法处理的奇怪的例外情况吗？因为导致发生的根本原因是我们处理关于哪个是我们的无人机、哪个是敌方无人机的混淆的方式相当有问题。
And I think that that's also worth talking about before we talk about bombing another country is we're the most sophisticated technological country in the world. Our weapons systems are the most sophisticated weapons systems in the world. Am I supposed to believe that if Palmer, Lucky, and Andrew were building this system, that this is what would have happened? Absolutely not. That there's no beaconing system on these drones that you could turn on remotely, that there's no way when you see the number of drones in an airspace that are yours so that you can quickly triangulate which ones are not yours.
在我们讨论轰炸另一个国家之前，我认为还有一件值得谈论的事情是，我们是世界上最先进的技术国家。我们的武器系统是世界上最复杂的武器系统。我应该相信，如果帕尔默、拉基和安德鲁在建造这个系统，会发生这种情况吗？绝对不会。这些无人机上没有信标系统，你无法远程打开，当你看到空域中的无人机数量时，没有办法快速三角定位哪些是属于你的。
And all of this to me, I think, is also worth exploring because if it's really again faulty engineering because of this monopoly, oligopoly in certain sectors of our economy, that then cause us to go and make a foreign relations decision about going to war. And we don't even talk about this thing as a root cause. It's worth talking about a different example on the same vein of this is like it turned out that in that Alaska Airlines issue, they actually shipped the plane without the doorplugs. Oops, we are the most sophisticated country in the world, guys. All our most sophisticated industries are not showing their best in this moment.
所有这些对我来说，我认为也值得探索，因为如果这实际上是因为某些经济领域中的垄断、寡头所导致的错误工程，那么我们就会做出涉及战争的对外关系决策。而我们甚至不谈论这事作为根本原因。值得谈论的一个不同例子是，事实证明在那次阿拉斯加航空事件中，他们实际上在没有安装门塞的情况下运送了飞机。天哪，我们是世界上最先进的国家。我们最先进的产业在这一刻并没有展现出最好的状态。
And I think that this is yet another example of before we make totally separate decisions about war and implicating our children's safety, we can also just ask, wait, we spent billions of dollars on this thing. How is it possible that this is like, honestly, like this is exception handling. This is like CS 101 type stuff, guys. Your book, book the plugs in the door. And it's regulatory captures the answer. This is crazy. There's no competition and they're charging cost plus. They're not innovating anymore. And they need competition, right? Just like SpaceX was massive competition for all of the governmental agencies around the world.
我认为这是另一个在我们对战争和牵连我们孩子的安全做出完全独立决策之前的例子，我们也可以通过问一下，我们花了数十亿美元在这件事上。怎么可能会像这样，说实话，就像处理异常一样。这就像是计算机科学101级的东西，伙计们。你们的书，书上塞满了门口的插头。而且它的回答是监管的困扰。这太疯狂了。没有竞争，他们还收费成本加上费用。他们不再创新了。他们需要竞争，对吧？就像SpaceX对全世界的政府机构来说都是巨大的竞争对手一样。
We have the execution in our industrial complex. Now the way to answer that turns out to be a foreign policy decision to go to war. And I think that those two things need to be decoupled for a second so that we can deescalate and say, hold on a second, this thing happened. But why did it happen?
我们的工业综合体中执行了某项行动。现在，回答这一行动的方式却成了一项外交政策决定，导致了战争。我认为，这两件事需要先解开，以便我们能够缓和局势，并问一下，等等，这件事发生了，但是为什么会发生呢？
Meaning, of course, people are going to attack us. We are the bright shining beacon on a hill. People should hate us in mono attack us. That's just the nature of being a winner. To be fair, they're not attacking us because we're the shining city on a hill over here, just minding our own business. They're attacking us because we're talking about Iraq. But yes, we should expect that. Yes, we should expect that these things work. We should expect it.
当然，人们会攻击我们。我们是那座山上闪耀的明灯。人们应该对我们怀有敌意并攻击我们，这是成功的必然性。公平地说，他们攻击我们并不是因为我们是那座山上闪耀的城市，只是守着自己的事务。他们攻击我们是因为我们谈论伊拉克。但是是的，我们应该预料到这一点。是的，我们应该预计这些事情会发生。
So there's a few things happening here with our military industrial complex. So the first one is that drones have been a huge game changer. We've seen this in the Ukraine war. The one really new technological element has been drones has completely changed the face of war. And one of the things it does is a huge leveler because these cheap drones give these militias in Syria and Iraq, or it gives the Houthis and Yemen a capability to strike at us that they didn't have before. And we saw that our air defenses are just not really cut out to deal with this. There was an article describing how it was costing us $2 million to use an air defense missile to shoot down the drone or a cheap rocket that costs just a few thousand dollars. So you have this asymmetric warfare now where we simply cannot afford over a sustained period to shoot down all these drones.
所以，我们的军工复合体正在发生一些事情。首先是，无人机一直是一个巨大的游戏改变者。我们在乌克兰战争中就看到了这一点。无人机这个真正新的技术元素完全改变了战争的面貌。其中一个作用就是它让这些叙利亚和伊拉克的民兵，或也让也门的胡塞武装具备了攻击我们的能力，而他们以前是没有的。而我们发现我们的防空系统根本无法处理这些。有一篇文章描述了使用一枚防空导弹击落一架无人机或一枚只需几千美元的廉价火箭的成本为200万美元。因此，现在我们面临一种非对称战争，我们无法持续地击落所有这些无人机。
But wait, sorry, can I ask a question?
但是等一下，抱歉，我可以提一个问题吗？
Yeah. Our most important partner in that region is Israel. Israel has what we have thought to up until now, an impregnable system, right? The Iron Dome, which is meant to deal with all of these edge cases, right? Projectiles of all sorts, shapes and sizes coming in every direction.
是的。我们在该地区最重要的伙伴是以色列。以色列拥有一个我们迄今为止认为是无懈可击的系统，对吧？就是铁穹系统，旨在解决所有这些边缘情况，对吧？各种形状和尺寸的抛射物从各个方向而来。
Yeah. I've never heard of when the Iron Dome has failed. And we are sending Israel billions of dollars. Why couldn't we actually just buy the Iron Dome system for them and say, you know what, we're going to secure our bases in Syria and in order of these other places.
是的，我从来没有听说过钢铁穹顶系统失败的事情。而我们却向以色列派遣数十亿美元。为什么我们不能真的为他们购买钢铁穹顶系统，并告诉他们，你知道吗，我们将保护我们在叙利亚和其他地方的基地安全。
Yeah. Well, I'll tell you, so there's a military analyst named Stephen Bryan, who I follow as a former Undersecretary of Defense. And he talked about this. He has been calling now for before this attack happened to send two Iron Dome systems to Syria, to Iraq, basically the Middle East to protect our troops. He says, he said in his article, the reason why the US Army hasn't done that is because they didn't want to buy the Israeli system. They've been favoring some homegrown system that has improved.
嗯，好吧，我告诉你吧。有位名叫史蒂芬·布莱恩的军事分析师，作为前国防部副部长，我一直在关注他的观点。他谈到了这个问题。他一直呼吁在这次袭击发生之前，向叙利亚、伊拉克或者基本上中东地区派遣两个铁穹系统来保护我们的部队。他在他的文章中说，美军之所以没有这样做是因为他们不愿购买以色列的系统，他们一直偏向购买一些本土改进过的系统。
Corruption. There's a big problem there that we should be deploying Iron Dome there. Look, I would just get out of that area. I don't think we should be there. But at a minimum, if we are going to stay there, we have to protect our troops. So yes, we should be deploying Iron Dome. But the problem is that, again, just these drones are a game changer and they can overwhelm a system. Even Iron Dome can be overwhelmed. If Israel gets in a war with Hezbollah, which supposedly has like- This has one drone. It's N equals one. We were overwhelmed by N equals one.
腐败。这里存在一个大问题，我们应该在那里部署铁穹系统。看，我只是会离开那个地区。我不认为我们应该在那里。但至少，如果我们打算留在那里，我们必须保护我们的部队。所以是的，我们应该部署铁穹系统。但问题在于，再次强调，这些无人机是一个改变游戏规则的因素，它们可以压倒一个系统。即使铁穹系统也可能被压垮。如果以色列与真主党发生战争，据说他们拥有像这样的一架无人机，那就是N等于一。我们被N等于一的情况压垮了。
Well, I mean, I'm saying like it's true, right? We were overwhelmed when N equals one. There was a report to see other day that one of our ships in the Red Sea, it was fired on by a missile from Yemen. It made it through the Aegis system and they took it down with their last time to fence these like close-in guns. That was kind of scary because the Houthis have missiles that are capable of making it through our main air defense system for ships. I'm just saying like these, what's happening with these cheap rockets and these drones is it's giving our opponents capabilities that level the playing field a little bit.
嗯，我的意思是，我是说这是真的，对吧？当N等于一个时，我们感到压倒性。几天前有一份报告称，我们在红海的一艘船遭到了也门发射的导弹袭击。它穿过了宙斯盾系统，但他们用最后一次机会用近防炮将其击落。这有点吓人，因为胡塞武装有导弹能够穿越我们舰艇的主要空防系统。我只是在说，这些廉价火箭和无人机的发展，让我们的对手具备了一定的能力，使战局变得更加平衡。
But this is what I'm saying. I understand that concept, but I also understand that we have people on the ground that work for Team America. Again, I'll just take Palmer Lucky as the example, who frankly, I would bet on a thousand times over a Houti Rebel, he'll outsmart now power these guys. Why aren't our best and brightest people in a position to make these things?
但这就是我要表达的意思。我理解这个概念，但我也明白我们有一些地面上为美国团队工作的人。再说一遍，我就以帕尔默·拉基为例，坦率地说，我愿意把他和胡塞叛乱者比较一千次，他在智力上将毫不费力地超越这些家伙。为什么我们最优秀、最聪明的人没有机会去完成这些事情呢？
Well, because you're right, the defense industry is dominated by five of these prime defense contractors who work on cost plus are basically an oligopoly. They're not particularly innovative, but they just keep charging more every year for the same product. So we're getting less for more money. And they're led by a leadership who are motivated in a way where the returns that they generate and the success and the progress they make is not really coupled to progress. It's not really coupled to building an even better version of Iron Dome. It's about, as you said, having a job that you've earned over many years of fealty and then getting paid an enormous amount of money to just keep it going in the same direction, even if that direction means you've been adrift for decades. That's the shame of it.
嗯，因为你说得对，国防工业主要由五家主要国防承包商垄断，他们的工作方式是按成本加成，实际上形成了寡头垄断。他们并不特别创新，但他们每年却要对同样的产品收取更多的费用。所以我们花更多的钱却得到了更少的东西。而他们的领导层的动力不是与进步相关的回报、成功和进展。他们的动力是获得多年效忠所赢得的职位，并因此获得大量报酬，只要继续朝同一个方向发展，即使这个方向意味着他们已经在多年中失去了方向感。这就是可悲之处。
And then you're seeing every day, like, isn't it? And then Lindsey Graham is saying hit Iran. And I bet you Lindsey Graham is to getting donations from those five companies. I don't know. But look, there's no question that we need to shake up the military industrial complex. We need to get a lot more startups in there. There's a lot of VCs now who are funding. Yeah, defense startups. So it is a big area. And we'll obviously is kind of the leader of the pack, but there's a bunch of others getting funded. I saw that Eric Schmidt even created a drone company. So this is going to be a huge area of innovation. And I think that because of the Ukraine war, the Pentagon must now realize the urgency of being able to mass produce effective drones as well as create effective drone air defense. Countermeasures. Yeah, countermeasures. Yeah.
然后你每天都看到，对吧？然后林赛·格雷厄姆说要打击伊朗。我敢打赌林赛·格雷厄姆会从这五家公司那里获得捐赠。我不知道。但毫无疑问，我们需要动摇军工复合体。我们需要引入更多初创企业。现在有很多风投正在支持国防初创企业。所以这是一个重要的领域。当然，微软显然是领头羊，但还有其他一些公司也在得到资助。我听说埃里克·施密特甚至创建了一家无人机公司。这将是一个巨大的创新领域。我认为，由于乌克兰战争，五角大楼现在必须意识到我们迫切需要大规模生产有效的无人机，并创建有效的无人机防空对策。是的，对策。对的。
Just to give you a sense of this, like we led the series A in a company called Sildrone about seven years ago. And they make drones for the seas. Right. And what we did was we put these massive sensor arrays in these drones. And because of because of the sensors, it has perfect visibility into what's going on in any condition of whether right day, night, it doesn't matter. And so these drones in the Middle East, all over the waterways, allows us to have perfect understanding of what's going on. But despite that, it has taken years for us to be in a position to generate enough revenue. And now we're finally at that scale with the Navy and whatnot. But David, to your point, it is incredibly hard for startups, no matter how innovative we've been to break through this log jam. And the reason is because what we are good at is not what's rewarded. We are good at engineering and execution. But what is rewarded to your point is this very lobbying specific form of relationship management, right? And cultivating certain pockets of influence, it's a very difficult game to play. If what we come as bright eyed bushy tail from Califorifornia with a product that we think is superior, that actually helps advance American exceptionalism. It still doesn't always land. It takes a lot longer than it needs to in some cases.
只是为了给你一个感觉，大约七年前我们领导了一家名叫Sildrone的公司的A轮融资。这家公司生产海洋无人机。我们在这些无人机中安装了大型传感器阵列。因为这些传感器，无人机可以在任何天气条件下，无论白天还是晚上，都能完美地观察周围的情况。所以这些无人机在中东的水域中，让我们完全了解周围的情况。但尽管如此，多年来我们一直努力创造足够的收入。现在我们终于与海军等达到了相应规模。但是，如戴维所说，对于初创公司来说，无论我们有多么创新，都很难突破这个难题。原因是我们擅长的不是被奖励的。我们擅长工程和执行，但被奖励的是一种非常特定的游说式关系管理方式。培养特定的影响力圈是一场非常困难的游戏。就算我们来自加利福尼亚州满怀热情、拥有一种我们认为优越的产品，可以帮助美国卓越性的产品，也并不总是能够获得成功。有时候这需要比必要时间更长。
Yeah, I mean, so the Pentagon and the military industrial complex, there's going to be a lot more permeable to this type of innovation. I think that they're going to be incentivized to do it now, because they have to see what's happening in Ukraine, what's happening in the Middle East. And they realize that the gap is closed. And we have three innocent people that were killed. These people didn't deserve to die. They didn't deserve to die in an end of one. It's not an edge case. End of one, there was a drone. Come on, guys, we're better than that.
是的，我的意思是，五角大楼和军事工业复合体对这种创新将更加开放。我认为他们现在会被激励去做这些，因为他们必须看到乌克兰和中东正在发生什么。他们意识到差距已经拉近，并且我们有三个无辜的人被杀害了。这些人不该死。他们不应该死在一个个例中。这不是个别情况。有一架无人机。拜托，伙计们，我们应该比这更好。
And so what do you think is going to happen if we get in a war with Iran? Every single one of our bases in Syria and Iraq, and we have a lot are going to be sitting ducks to your point. You're forecasting your orchestrating a game plan for them, because it's like, if you were going to enter war, does it take a brilliant strategist to sit in a room and say, wait a minute, if they can't defend against one, what happens when we send 12? What happens when we send 12 to every single place? And to your point, Jason, it's this is like the unnecessary escalation that then happens, because then we have to respond with more force and with more kinetic energy. It was a certainty.
那么，如果我们与伊朗开战，你认为会发生什么？我们在叙利亚和伊拉克有很多军事基地，每一个都会成为容易遭受攻击的目标，正如你所指出的。你在为他们设计一项游戏计划，因为，如果我们要参与战争，有必要聪明的战略家坐在一个房间里思考，当他们无法防御一个目标时，当我们派遣12个目标时会发生什么？当我们在每个地方都派遣12个目标时会发生什么？正如你所说，杰森，这就是不必要的升级，因为这样我们只能以更大的力量和更高的动能来回应。这是一个必然情况。
Look, we're often talking on the show about how our bases in Syria and Iraq have been under attack by these militias for months. I think the last time we talked about it, there had been something like 80 attacks. And it was just a matter of time before Americans servicemen were killed, unfortunately.
看，我们在节目中经常谈论我们在叙利亚和伊拉克的基地遭到这些民兵组织的持续攻击。我记得我们上次讨论的时候，已经发生了大约80次袭击。不幸的是，美国的军人被杀只是个时间问题了。
And so like you said, Chamath, this was predictable. What's also predictable is that if we get a war with Iran, every single one of our bases will be attacked. If we strike on their soil, they will strike back and they have hypersonic missiles, they have precision missiles, they can destroy every one of these bases unless those bases have the top of the line air defense, which most of them don't.
正如你所说，Chamath，这是可以预料的。另一个可以预料的是，如果我们与伊朗发生战争，我们所有的基地都会遭到攻击。如果我们在他们的土地上发动打击，他们会进行反击，而且他们拥有超音速导弹、精确制导导弹，他们可以摧毁这些基地中的每一个，除非这些基地拥有一流的防空系统，而大多数基地并没有。
But if you go to someone like Lindsey Graham and say, listen, our troops are vulnerable, we need to basically either pull out of Syria and Iraq, or we need to consolidate down to a few bases that have iron dome or the best systems. These neocons will say absolutely not, we're not conceding anything. They would never pick up a gun, they'd never wear a uniform. Right. But they want us to strike Iran. So these strategies don't line up. If you wanted to attack Iran, the first thing you would do is basically get all of our troops out of harm's way, who are currently sitting ducks for Irani retaliation. By the way, I think it'd be a terrible idea. But that's what you do. So they have these strategies that don't make any sense.
但是，如果你去找类似林赛·格雷厄姆这样的人，告诉他们，听着，我们的军队很容易受到攻击，我们要么撤出叙利亚和伊拉克，要么只留下一些拥有铁穹或是最好系统的基地。这些新保守主义者会立刻说绝对不能，我们不能让步。他们从不拿起枪，也从不穿军服。对，但他们希望我们打击伊朗。所以这些战略是不符合逻辑的。如果你想对伊朗进行攻击，第一件事就是确保我们的部队远离危险，因为他们现在是伊朗报复的靶子。顺便说一句，我认为那是个糟糕的主意。但那就是你要做的。所以他们有这些没有任何意义的战略。
All right, everybody, it's been an amazing show for the dictator, chairman himself, Jamal, Pauli, Hatatia, the rain man. Yeah, David Sachs. I am the world's greatest moderator. We missed you, Sultan of science, David Freibert couldn't make the show. And we'll see. He's still in the, if anybody gets into the Apple Pro vision, vision pro in his summer out in the universe by Uranus. And you see him bring him back for next week. So I'm gonna go find him. We got to stand out of search party to Uranus.
好的，大家，这场演出真是太棒了，我们的独裁者、主席本人，贾马尔，保利，哈塔蒂亚，下雨的男人。是的，大卫·萨克斯。我是世界上最伟大的主持人。我们想念你，科学的苏丹，大卫·弗雷伯特不能参加演出。我们会看到他。他还在，如果有人进入了苹果专业视觉中，他会在自己的夏季活动中去天王星。如果你看到他，请带他下周回来。所以我要去找他。我们要组织一支搜索队去天王星。
Love you, boys. Bye. Bye. Bye.
爱你们，孩子们。再见。再见。再见。
What are you doing? I'm going to try.
你在做什么？我要试一试。
Besties are gone. That's my dog taking a picture. I wish you a driveway. That's weird at all. Oh man. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.
最好的朋友都不在了。那是我的狗在拍照。我希望你有一条车道（此处意指一种幸福和顺利的生活）。真的很奇怪。哎呀。我们都应该找个房间，来一次大型混乱的聚会，因为他们都有一种性的紧张感，需要以某种方式释放出来。
What? You're the beat.
什么？你是最强的。
What? You're the beat.
什么？你是最棒的。
What? Besties are gone.
什么？最要好的朋友们走了。