Hello, everyone! We're on ToTheMoon. Technological news, Silicon Valley sites and the world.
People say, "What do you want to invest?"
I mean, some strong specialist needs to be, and the company's either willing to pay or buy it with a team, I don't know, with a resource, not with a resource, but, accordingly, it's the type of specialist.
That part of the AI value is still people.
No Meta! Zuckerberg fell in my eyes for life. That's it! How could he even?
We talked about GPT Search last week with you, uh, about their new search they want to release on everyone. Let's see how this happens. Very, uh, I think there was an interesting meeting. And, uh, literally, well, at least late last night, uh, I read, but I just got past the anon, and, uh, at least at the time of the shooting, at least, the Google in the Ram-- in Chrome is gonna build Google AI andia. I've shown a whole bunch of things that'll be there. It's gonna be big, you know, it's a new yuzkeis, which-- it's not there, yeah, it's never been so big. And they showed enough-- they must have been one-time, one-time chips. But the main story was that you could go on the page, uh, click on the suitcase, and you'd find that suitcase, and you'd be there next... Uh, well, we're gonna put it in, who's the audience, you're gonna see it, right? And you can find it there, find me this suitcase not black, but red. And he'll find him. And there's more to be sold. And they still have a bunch of chips in the plan, uh, and the interesting thing is that they've produced such a pddata to compare the product. I mean, it's a movement in e-commerce that's very strong. It's very interesting when the browser, uh, starts doing this multifunctional app. Maybe, in theory, again, in theory, it could be a multifunctional app. As my hypothesis exists that a system like ChatGPT can become, uh, a little bit of a full-fledged operating system. Also, now Google has released the browser, and they've made it a clear first, uh, Apple. It looks, uh, very interesting, even though I'm a Apple user, yes, it's just a Safari user and not a Chrome. Sasha, you were telling me...
just before we started, we were talking about the deal that Google bought Character AI, and, uh, gave examples of how these deals are done in a closed type, because people might not understand. Can you tell me, please?
These AI deals are actually one American company buying an American-on-the-American company, and so only the American Antimonopoly Service is screaming these deals, right? But we all know there are more complex cases, like the Microsoft and Activision Blizzard or, uh-a, or the Adobe and Figma deal, when more international business is already in place and other regulators are included, right? And now, of all regulators, it's probably the American regulator that's one of the toughest, because they have a very, very strong antimonopoly direction in their work. Big companies like Google, Amazon and Microsoft, it's very, very difficult to buy another company. So Microsoft bought Activision Blizzard is a miracle. And I'm seeing that since-- when in the last deals, when Amazon bought Adept, Microsoft bought Inflection, and Google bought Character AI, the transaction structure was inconclusive. This is a transaction structure that records a certain valuation, but then separately buys invis-- separately buys investors, gives, takes a team to themselves, proportionate to their shares, pays the money, respectively. But the company itself, the legal entity itself, yes, as a sa-sama legal company, no one buys it. So, actually, the e--- is going to be a complicated deal about what can be used in whole or in part by the IP. I mean, it's basically like a new form of equity hire transactions when the team and some technology are taken, but it's usually like, say, no, it's probably that way. And, as a consequence, the business itself, the product of users, the hygigantics don't buy.
Why did they buy Character AI?
It's actually a question I don't have an answer.
In the case of Microsoft, the situation is very clear. Everyone in the valley is talking about the fact that very-- Microsoft is in a weak position because they depend on OpenAI, Sam, and there is, uh, personal, and it's like business-diffles or business-diffles. I don't understand, and personal misunderstandings. Ah, so they need to have their own, their C-- their strong AI-Comanda., and to collect a strong AI-comand, you need to have a lead researcher. So they took Inflection because, uh-a, Mus-Mustaf, who CEO Inflection, he was the DeepMind cofaunder who bought Google in the 14th year. In the case of Amazon, the situation also understands that they already have a multi--- large generative AI adoption. Mm-hmm, her fashion-- her model, she's not on the hipe and she's got no eminent people. And they took Adept because cofaunder Adept is also one of the authors of the article on the transformer. In the case of Google, it's really not clear. So the food innova-- that is, the food integration is coming. Gemini got the last one on the baccalaureate, I think, top one. But it's necessary- but it's not true, you have to re-check it. But the last Ge-Gemini vet, she's been arousing a large collar-- a large number of people in the comunit. The only problem I see at Google is that they can't do PR, but buying Character AI is definitely not gonna help them with PR. Character AI, too, didn't work out for myself to be well-marked. So I can't figure out what purpose Google specifically decides. Maybe, well, I-- the deal, they say, closed very fast and maybe there was a situation like that. Maybe there was some competition, I don't know. But, uh-- here's the point of the deal. I don't understand. Plus, the price is very high. Uh, one case is like Adept, uh, the sums, like 600 million, and... and then two and a half billion. Thato's too much money.
Well, obviously, under these circumstances, it was some kind of competition, someone could have bought them, right?
I guess, but we're the ones who thought about it then.
Some company or some kind of technology, but it's speculation. Because it doesn't even know they're gonna be, uh, what they're gonna have, uh, superplus. Invisible.
Yeah, that's-- that's totally invisible. So in the case of Google, it might have been worth having a separate, say, daughter in Alphabet that would be dealing with products. Maybe I don't know. Maybe it would make sense., because what do you say? Because if it's a separate company from Google, right? That's how she's got less antimonopoly conversors, let's say, right? So less than some antimonopoly potential problems. But it's definitely not a Character AI case, again.
That's why I'm very hard to assume.
I wonder if we're having an educational show not only for audiences, but for participants. Because when I read that news, I couldn't-- well, I mean, I had this kind of thing going on, but it didn't work out that company was bought, did it? Because if our audience read the news itself, it looks like a former Google staff member returned to Google, took several other key staff with him. The company itself was not, however, bought or signed an exclusive use agreement, uh, there, service or company API. And I'm just saying that I hear that it's just a new way to buy companies, right? So the company didn't buy the Activision Blizzard once, but it's got key staff. They were compensated accordingly, and part of the team was left outside. And, well, the companies have allocated money to keep moving. I understand the company didn't have much of a good deal with the money, either. Looks like it's a American approach for, uh, working with the antimonopoly service.
Even at my level, uh, very many different aspects I'm facing. A-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-leg, they often, they're very often stupid, so they can come up with anything. I'm more interested that Google didn't buy Wiz, but it would make sense to buy it. I'm all right, yeah, can't explain it to myself. I mean, there are, like, cases where they buy pure business and throw away all people. It makes Bending Spoons in the mobile applications world. They buy, like, an app, you know, companies, and they leave the app, the app, the app, they take it, everything is optimized and--
The sébé is optimizing and throwing out, 80-90% of people, if not 100. Uh, uh, that means one model. AI takes people for rabid sums. And then.....a half billion is too much. So, the main value in AI is people, right? Not a name, not all of it. Uh, cases... I think the answer is yes. I think that's the only company that makes sense as a company, I think, now, maybe I'll say stupid. Yeah, I think it's just Perplexity. There's a brand. I mean, I think there's enough user data there, and there's a lot of information that's very specific to research use case. I think that's just Perplexity's exception, yes. Everyone, all the other companies in the generative AI, if they're interesting, are mostly talented. Well, Leonardo, it turns out, bought-- we-- on the contrary, Canva bought Leonardo.ai, and many people have very many misunderstandings about why. Leonardo had most of his time without his model, they had, um, negative gross margins. And in pictures, actually, getting a positive gross margin is not a very difficult task, it's a solution. Here. They had negative gross margins, but they had almost 30 million revenue, but they had a heterogeneity. So very different, very different users used it, and it was not clear what their differentiation would be. And Iia was-- well, and they were taken by Canva, and they didn't understand why. I mean, it would seem that, to collect, maybe Canva is good--- maybe Canva is the only one that misses his strong research unit, but Leonardo doesn't have it either. So many of these deals are very difficult to explain. It's a standard one, 2000 logic, 16 or 2019. Now the market is very hard to understand, and the only one that can be understood is Microsoft. Now, Microsoft understands why they bought Activision Blizzard, which is why they bought Inflection, that's all clear. And so, the market is the majority of the transactions, uh, it's totally unreal.
And by continuing with your thought of what's in Gen AI, companies, investments and stuff are being created under the names. We've got Sutskever leaving the OpenAI, opened his company, then Andrei Carpathian, he worked there and in Tesla, and in OpenAI, and he also created his own s-- his own start-up, too. The Mask-- there, of course, was not exactly about, um, research name, but somehow, 6 billion, uh-e, invested in the name, identity, human, right? And generally, it's like the market's coming this way. I mean, some strong specialist needs to be, and underneath the company's either willing to pay or buy it off the team, I don't know, with a resource, not with a
resource, but, as a result, the professionals gather.
How easy is it now, uh, to do something, uh, little or-- team? Or even if you're a good director? I had a friend here the other day, he's strong enough, uh, strong, there, a man technically in AI, in ML. And he told me that everything, uh, should go to, uh, four companies. He listed four companies that should go to. He said, " Because it has become clear that one or more people will do something, uh, that is extremely difficult, but that there are companies that can do it. " Uh, by the way, Microsoft wasn't there, was he? He said that Microsoft was a bad team. Well, that's probably why they're buying what you say, Sasha, right? A-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-the- listed companies listed listed companies as those that, uh, really might actually do. Uh, how much more is it now that someone else is doing? Or now all the companies are gonna buy, which are starting to start and that's been doing something over the past few years, and then they'll be going to be very much on this, at least the market, uh, and the big players will be I'm not. Or is the start-ups in this area still gonna be a new spike and a new era?
100%, 100%. I mean, there's Andrissen, who has 40 billion dollars to invest in generative AI, and they're out of the market, as well as corporations, they're out of the market and sovereign funds, right? They have other planning horizons, other tasks, different strategies. For all the other funds, it must be a bit more difficult now, yes.
So it's hard for the funds and for starters, hard, or...?
Yeah, yeah. I think I'm, uh, yeah-- yeah, sure, yeah. I think it's connected, of course, yes. I mean, yeah, as long as , except Anthropic, it's probably not clear which of the starttaps will have such a long-term
value, yes, as long as it's not clear.
Because I wonder if we have even commentaries very much on the channel. People ask: "Tell me where to invest? But we're not gonna say anything. I don't know, at least I'm sure. Yeah.
Yeah, uh, that's, by the way, that's, uh, that's, uh, that's a very interesting question, by the way. That's a very cool question, by the way. That's a very, very cool question. It must be in there that doesn't apply to most people. But there's, like, a number of investors who can either invest on-- like, private equity, say, right? And there's a kind of capital growth that invests either in pre-IPO or in public companies, right? I mean, this is a class of investors that focus on companies before IPO or whatever it might be, but it's public. And in the generative AI, these companies are actually-- now, like, not attractive at all, right? I mean, in the world, that's kind of a start-up and a lot of news, but it's like a little mice stink, right? I mean, because, like, it's like, "noise breaths" to-- to levels above the floor is completely empty. Absolutely empty. I mean, if someone wants to buy a public company share to get, uh-a, to get, like, exposure, to get-- to participate, like, in this generative AI revolution, there's not much of a choice., because even if you buy a lot of shares of Microsoft or buy Google, well, Google's gonna grow up, like, three times, huh? Well, there's no small public company that-- that invests actively in generative AI, which can grow up 30, 100 times potentially. I don't even have one. Uh, on this side, I'm the only one who can recommend Roblox, for a number of reasons.
A-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-the-a-the-a-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the-the- I mean, when the technology gets, Roblox is, I think, well-positioned to introduce. And they don't even have a platform commercial yet. When they have both, I think the company might have a big growth. And the pre--- in principle, except Rob-- and they have a strong technical team, a strong technical brand, and they'll figure it out. They invest enough in the generative AI, but in the other way Roblox, I must have noticed someone.
Roblox is a public company, yes. So they have a market for capitalization of 25 billion. But of course, very good in--vo-vo-vatile, enough volatilized flow. But again, I guess it's because of the choice-- if they ask me, "What company has the greatest chance of growing up 30 times because of the generative AI?”, maybe it's Roblox.
Mm-hmm. Although they seem quite mixed, considering that they, uh, had, after IPO, they were about to stay in the same range, then they had a spike, and then they just got a stupid fall lower than IPO, huh? They now remain at the same share price for several years.
100% yes. I am saying, therefore, that for most, uh-a, investors who want to invest in public markets, in companies that can grow up hard because of generative AI, unfortunately, there is no good proposal.
Again, if someone has ideas, write the commentary.
What about the wow, uh, discussion about what, uh-a-a-a-a-a-who-who-who-who-whose companies are gonna do something and show up? Like, in the third quarter, in the fourth quarter or early in the year, will new companies be showing up with, uh, some crew? That's what happened last year, for example, in terms of investment, uh, in the AI area. Or is investors now slowing down and not, uh, giving a lot of money? Well, as they were, there, Y com-- YC, and there's tens of thousands, I think, of starttaps.
That's a good question. Uh, I mean, I'm right now, uh, I've even looked at the news, and if I see it, I think that the situation is next, uh, that Amazon has announced that 230 million will invest in generative AI. Ah, then they said M-Menlo and En-Entropic had a fund of 100 million. But I think the problem now is that Cisco's not-- Cisco said he's set a fund for $1 billion. And besides that, I don't think there's any new ones.
There seems to be no new, funds, cat-- no new funds that invest in-- that are, like, invested in generative AI. And I think it's enough, uh, negative-- , negative market impact, right? Because we're not gonna have these signals that LP, which is, in a rude way, pension funds, endowment they want in the generative AI. There are no new funds that are targeted under generative AI.
And from the point of view of what can be really developed, can new teams be ahead of today, uh, existing technologies that go? Well, I know there's always something you can think of and do. But can there be something really breakthrough about what peddates we're seeing? So how much are they going to go? Remember, you know how to compare history with? We were talking about some part of the releases back, uh, talking about In-Intel, and what's interesting is, they're gonna be able to move forward or not, right? And it's yesterday, a-a-a-a-- on Twitter, well, X-Me goes, there's a dead Intel in there, yes, it says. Well, in the words, it's written on their logo. About what they're doing, and, uh, and so on. Is that not so? That's a big guy, right? So, a company with great access to-- just a huge deal of money. I don't know, maybe some kind of time story doesn't know Intel much, and what they're doing there. Maybe it's always been, they grew a little bit, a little, there, a timeline.
But how much can you, uh, make some real real-out little teamwork now?
I'm sure you can. B-- from the point of view of applications, there are many possibilities. I mean, uh, for example, I think a number of teams are working on how, uh, how to help the con-- this is in the consumer segment, how to put in the process of creating a content of generative AI. And two are specific skies. The first skies is, uh, photographing their clothes, and as a recommendation. So the standard problem was that people, if-- those who took pictures of their wardrobe, like, there, like, this shaking arm, bad light and result, well, that's how it works. And now, well, technology, they're either saying they're either gonna find the original image or fix all the light problems and so on. I mean, pull these photos out. Ah, there are more professional cases. It's the same thing, but with the labels, right? I mean, I'm-- I'm gonna go to the Poshmark Marquets or there's eBay. The quality of the pictures, it's there, well, it's terrifying. Or the same thing about CarMax and others, aggregators, where people sell, uh, from the car, for example. It feels like a ru-ruc's shaking, so-so-dreaming doesn't know how to fall. Airbnb is the same problem often. Ah, Zillow and ta-- et cetera. So there's a problem on all these labels. I don't think it's even with pictures yet, not with the video. Uh, maybe the technology hasn't been quite successful, but it's already there, actually, already around.
Well, you're talking about being skies where people are, uh... Well, shorter, there's skies where we can still make small groups of people, not s-- not with a huge investment in money. Or that number of even skies is gonna be even bigger now, with the access and new opportunities, uh, new r--- well, I don't know, Chrome's gonna let the peddith out, Google AI inside, uh, you can. create an incredible number of different flames, right? And on these plaguins, there's something to make, like, so on.
Yeah, I-- and 100%.
And I think it also shows that there's a lot of investment like the voice of the OpenAI, right? It's like a new one. If it's like a new interface, it's gonna need to turn the whole infrastructure around it. I mean, if there's a trend, that everything has to have a voice, AI support, right? All of this has to have voice AI support, in-indication, and so on. And then again, the assistants will be alive, everyone will want to be integrated with the new generation Siri, Alexa, and so on, right?
Yeah, basically, we need to look very forward. I mean, watch, uh, be on the subject with the peddates that big operators do, and now, under their future, some peddies do, too. Because what you're saying is, it's all, uh, or something, you know, in the e-commerce stuff, it's like future-beaming peddies, right?
Yeah. And unfortunately, yes, I don't have any ps-- good advice. I mean, what I'm saying is, it's very similar to what Sam Altman says, that building like a start-up has to be built under future capabilities. And if they happen, it could be, like, a wave of stubbornness and some advantage for three to six months in front of all the others.
I'm waiting for my opening, uh, a new voice in ChatGPT, and I have a tie that says you're about to get opened, well, some kind of a bunch of paid users are getting turned around. But here we are with Elnar in one workspace. I hope we have a new voice. I also expect GPT Search, yes.
Yeah. And here, actually, we're talking about, uh, that investors, uh, are hard to invest now, and that's not enough, right? That's because at the pre-IPO level, IPO is empty and unfamiliar, which is who of the generative AI companies will be there at all. Because Anthropic is a pretty strange structure, too, right? Ia's a-- which, uh, isn't-- probably not good to go to IPO. And here we have to understand that the most-- what Andryssen's parole has a16z, they have no way of even getting those 40 billion they invest in generative AI without companies going to IPO, right? Well, because when the company's selling, it's probably $10 billion, roughly, right? Here, and realistically, five. They can't return their $40 billion.
I think that's exactly why they support the Trumpa active. Because Trump promised he'd change Lina Khan, right? That he's gonna change exactly Mr. Clau, the Antimonopoly Service. And big colic...
Yeah, he said he'd change the first day.
Yeah, on the first day. And a large number of investors support it, too. All that understands that, uh, maybe there's no way that big funds can get back to the money. There are no other ones, there's no way.
Look, it's interesting, interesting. We hear-- uh, I have one of the companies that, um, in the mortgage business, and now a huge number of clients are waiting, uh, for the election, and says, "We'll take a decision after the election." I say, "What are you waiting for, um, to wait for the election? Uh, because, in general, uh, bid-- they're waiting, it's clear that the rate change will not rise, and it's likely that, according to all the projections, it's gonna fall by half this year, Yeah? September, there's December. So it's gonna fall anyway, and you can, there, refinance. " But the whole thing, it's a big discussion. And you're interested in the Andryssen example, and they did interviews with Horvitz and told them how they supported the Trump and why. That's very, very interesting, by the way. That's the point, that, uh, making such statements, yeah, that's a very strong statement, yeah, that's still a indicator, a market indicator, an , a world technology market, right? I mean, they're one of the, uh, strongest operators in the world in terms of financing for the technology market, understanding where to invest when investing, access to the starttaps, everything. They made a statement very hard, yes.
Well, they're the markers. I mean, I'd say they're the mackerel markers in the startups. So it's all sk-- all of them are being marketed and they're sending the market. Yeah, so they're having a very big market right now... As if the market structure is not good enough for them as a whole, because they need to be like this is the cycle of creation-- like companies grow up, go to IPO and have a lot of returns.
Now the market doesn't work like that, and they certainly need to change something urgently.
Look, Trump spoke at Bitcoin 2024 and supported, he said, that it would be a crypt at green light when-- even though he said four years ago, "Cryptuta is an an ascendant and an enemy for a dollar." And I asked a question, uh, American, grown up, "What's the point of ever going through, uh, presidentialism on a narrow theme like krypto and driving to a conference? Well, what did I say-- a-one said, "Well, Trampe needs any publicity, no matter what. Gather the Zoom into three people, he'll make a statement. " But, I'm sure, that's the position.
We should call.
And the other one tells me that-- yes, and the other tells me that--
By the way.
And the other one tells me that-- oh, call, right? And the other one I-- well, that's his position, yeah. And the other one tells me that, uh, Trump is very interested in, uh, the market, uh, and the people on the market.
and the people who are within the Silicon Valley, uh, absolutely to be on his side. I don't know how... I'm sure it's a big deal. I don't know where the market is. And the Silicon Valley market is obviously a B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-R. Uh, but the ex--- that's a statement on Bitcoin 2024. Why?
I mean, there was a lot of shit in there. So, traditionally, in the valley, we have been publicly supported, and in public, we speak of publicly, we have supported the democracies. It's changing now. Aah, and a lot of shit on that account. And it's important to say what-- well, if we're talking about it all that way, right? What the Trump will replace Lina Khan is not gonna help companies get out of the IPO. So if the companies are not good, they don't have a good product, no revenue, it's not gonna help in two years like, uh, companies grow up, right? I mean, it's a long time-- it's a b-b-b-just change the whole market structure and so much longer-term change. And with the crypt, I think there's a solution that can be made in one day of the chi-- ay that will be very forgotten by all the cryptics and that will give liquidity opportunities - same thickens, right? - that will give investors the liquidity, in blatant words. I mean, if we're talking about how to give the president a way to give investors, that's how venture investors are getting more liquid, I think it's through, uh, a rhythm bush and back. Because that's what I'm saying, the problem with generative AI at IPO.
IPO - this is so long-term
It's a very long story, actually. No, it's a very long story. And then, uh, it's a long question, isn't it? These quick shots. And, from the point of view of crypts, it's a rapid change, but how it affects the economy for 10 years, it's another question. But he can make money to people.
Yes! And right now, actually, uh-oh, how do I say? I mean, we know, yes, that in a large number of countries, the same, I don't know, in China, there's a lot of QR-cods in Kazakhstan. I understand that often QR-cods pays means that it's a blow to Vi-Visa and Mastercard systems. So QR-code pay goes through a system of bank transfers, buto, it doesn't go through Visa and Mastercard. There's a huge potential here, you know, not to pay, how much is it? - 2 or 3 per cent Visa and Mastercard. Well, that's right, I, uh... It's clear that there are, uh, Central American countries that have introduced payments in, uh, crypt. Ah, but I think there's a lot of advantages.
It's a very expensive content, based on El Salvador's history and so on, it's a very expensive maintenance. Contents
Yeah, it's expensive, yeah. It's probably that low-weighted fruit that allows all banks, all financial organizations to diversify into crypt.
And that's what I think, again, is a decision that can be quickly taken that will quickly affect the market.
Speaking of the Silicon Valley. You, Sasha, said that the Silicon Valley was public, um, always supported democrats. Uh, I'm in the Silicon Valley recently, uh, just over a year and a half, right? I don't feel that there's, uh, space, um, democratically directed.
That's a good point, isn't it? I mean...
Maybe it's mine, maybe it's my little surveillance, right?
Or your environment, Sasha. If you talk to other people from other spheres, they're just that kind of thing.
Yeah. I mean, uh, what happened in 2021, I remember exactly a number of companies, uh, talking when there were, uh, protests when there were protests and how the White House was seized or stormed, yes, extremists, ultra right, and, uh, Well, a number of companies have said-- they have banned their employees from expressing support for the Republicans, uh, under threat of dismissal. Uh, well, I don't have any real statistics, yes, I mean, uh, sili-- on the Silicon Valley. But, uh, Reid Hoffman and the Wine of Hosla are so famous, very popular venture investors. They say, of course, that they actively support democracies.
Ah, it looks like...
But Elon Musk is supporting the Trumpa.
Of course, yes, yes.
And And Andrissen and Andrissen and Jorovic were both pure, very strong. He's gonna pull the cryptors now.
But it's, of course, little, some little piece of it, uh, what we're talking about the Silicon Valley, right? It's like a little shot.
Well, social media has a major influence on how the vote is, right? Iia, well, who Andrissen thinks is irrelevant. And that's what Mask thinks, what Spigel thinks and what Zuckerberg thinks, is of great importance. Well, it's really incredibly huge. If Ilon's clear, the other two are unclear.
I think Zuckerberg is clear. Judging by the way he interviewed Bloomberg TV, everything's clear.
On a personal note, it's, you know, I mean, seeing Donald Trump get, get up after getting shot in the face and pump his fist in the air with the American flag is one of the most badass things I've ever seen in my life
He's a vivid democrat, he clearly expressed support for the Trumpa. Well, I think there was a clear support when a man, he's straight, saying, "We're like Facebook, unlike before, we're gonna continue to be very neutral now, we're not gonna get into any kind of thing. history, we're not gonna say anything. It is important that people not receive political content but continue to communicate with each other. " You know, when I saw Trump raise his hand, it's pretty serious.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I saw it, yes, I agree. And here, I think you know what--
That's it! And then the program is clear.
...but! But there's a little but.
My friend from the AI world, who is so democrat, has expressed a very negative attitude to this part. He said, "all of it! No Meta, and Zuckerberg fell in my eyes for life. That's all. How could he even? He's a separate power from-- he's a separate power in the world, a separate State, and nobody can do anything to him. He may move separately and be neither-- nor neutral, and speak as he wants. " And there was a clear view of how he did it in that roller.
So before that, there were five companies that could work, right? Then there's four.
He didn't even consider it. He says, "They invite me, they write to me all the time, I don't. Well, maybe I'll take a look. But then when we said something, something was different.
So, it turns out that democrats have a lot of posital friends left, that's Google, well, that's a very democratic, whole democratic agenda, and Snapchat. And as if Snapchat stock was falling very much. Noo, yes, there's a feeling or a suggestion that if they go down there...
if there's a block down there, 50-100 million political commercials down the block, Snapchat will be more relaxed.
I think they're pumping. The Republicans, of course, started to rock the riels and shorts so hard. I'm right-- well, it's a direct attack. And then everyone says wait, now the democracies are going to start. Now, this is August, the middle will be, and it's gonna start with them just like that... well, just what they're doing, I've never seen that before. I'm a man used to another political system, I've never seen it. It was just urinating him, just washing him in social media. They just take off such roals and shorts every day. You're looking at it-- well, it's just meat. It's just meat. It looks like, uh, maybe this year, right? And plus that access. Everyone already understood how social media is important, social media is important, but the shorts, the racing, there, millions, dozens of millions of views. If you see 20 times like this on some candidate you've been thinking about, you're starting to get a weird feeling, because they're all taking the cuts. And that's politics. And in politics, you take a man's speech eight years ago-- he said it was different, didn't he? And that's what they're doing, so they start to connect it, cut it out. And plus that freedom of speech...
I think it's very unfair to Kamala. To Camal, I'm sorry, I think it's very unfair. Well, I mean, well, there's something very intense about her.
Yeah, the current vice president is attacking it. Well, it's just some fucking shit, right? You're just looking at it. I mean, the current vice president, and he's being urinated like it's just some guy or girl, a girl who decided, so, uh, to put out her candidacy. I mean, it's--
Yeah. Well, B-Okay, Baden, it's clear, it's clear, it's like it's been there every time, but she didn't do anything wrong, she didn't really get it, actually, they're just really doing it. I mean, it's just a hard one.
Yeah, editing's a very, very hard editing. As one American said, over 60 years old, he said, "America can do anything, but not kill a man." Yeah, in terms of speech.
And pay taxes.
Yeah, in terms of speech, that's why--
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Because Mr. Gun has been very, uh, very, erm, very, uh-- felt it for the first time. I'm the first, again. Yeah. I'm in the States for less than two years, so maybe here--
Maybe this is what happened here. We'll see.
No, I don't think so. I don't think that's what happened. I think it's just that now, well, there's no reason to piss Harris, and it's started to piss, but it's like-- there's a Polymarket site. You know or you don't know? Honestly, I'm surprised. I mean, I'd like to-- well, shorter, I-I'm really-- when I was a kid, I was just gonna do that thing. And here's actually, like, people are complaining, right? I mean, it's real time, it's all jasty, which is 53 percent, 44 percent. I mean, it's like a real time to see what people think.
Mmm, cool.
And there's a real Camala Harris market, uh, if-- I don't know, there's this statistic, I'm gonna try to open--
Got it.
...or I can't.
She's a statistician, she's a statistic, and there's
Anyway, the point is, she's really big, she's growing up. Yeah, well, the point is, it's really grown.
Yeah. She's growing up. But a good statistical site is, uh, Pool538. The diapers are very powerful maths, and they've shown a breakthrough in the last election.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
...analysis. I recommend that this 538, and we can give a link there. Uh, bullets, they aggregated other bullets, made mathematical models and predicted quite well the probability and changes of trends. And what you see is that it's true, in all the discussions, well, she's got a rating, and that's very interesting. And there are interesting indicators, uh, as Americans, for example, do not support or support, yes, an opinion, uh, a view of a candidate. And you see that choo, uh, Harris, she's got a rating on August 1, for example, she's got a better rating. It's obvious that-- at least what the Republicans have done to him in the last few weeks, because they've been washing her very hard, very hard, yeah. She's got a little rating right now, but it's still a start. It's a start. They say everything, the whole meatloaf is gonna be a little late, and we're still gonna be real. Here. Well, at least we can watch her and make some conclusions or projections. It's not like, uh, screaming, uh, nervous or home for a beer, but to see what's-- it's always an inter-inter-exploratory story. Surveillances to deliver, see what trends are, yes, in what's going on. Well, that's a very good thing, I think today is the subject of, uh, our issue, and there were many requests in the commentaries. People are actually interested in it. Such information is clearly not easy to understand. Like you, Ilnar, said, really, you could just think that people fled the company and fought inside, uh, on the example of Correct AI. Uh, thanks for the graduation. Thank you very much, everybody. Sign the canal, write comments, write topics that are interesting. That's how Sasha made recommendations on your questions today. I always make such recommendations very difficult. Eh, bye, bye, bye!