Podcasts about Netscape

In this episode of Elixir Wizards, Charles Suggs and Emma Whamond are joined by Ellyse Cedeno, founder of Heuristic Salvo and a software engineer and product leader with more than 25 years of experience across early internet platforms, gaming, health tech, and distributed systems. Ellyse shares the winding path that took her from early search engines and Netscape to game development, medical research at Mount Sinai, and eventually to Elixir. Along the way, she talks about staying curious over a long technical career, rediscovering joy through side projects, and why being willing to feel like a beginner again can be one of the most useful skills a developer can build. The conversation explores what it means to grow as an engineer in a world where AI tooling is becoming part of the everyday workflow. Ellyse makes the case that technical skill still matters, but the human parts of software development (like judgment, curiosity, communication, trust, and influence) are becoming increasingly important. We also talk about soft influence and how developers can create change inside organizations without relying on hard authority. Key Topics Discussed in this Episode: Ellyse's career path through early internet platforms, gaming, health tech, and distributed systems Moving from Netscape and search engines to medical research and software consulting Discovering Elixir through an interest in concurrent and distributed systems Why beginner's mindset still matters after decades in tech How neurodivergence, curiosity, and deep focus shape Ellyse's approach to programming Rediscovering joy in programming through side projects and experimentation Building an MMORPG game server in Elixir Exploring hardware, Nerves, and live theremin demos The role of passion projects in professional growth Protecting time for learning in productivity-focused environments Work-life balance differences between the U.S. and Europe How AI tools are changing expectations for modern developers Why AI does not replace judgment, taste, or technical understanding Understanding business needs instead of only focusing on technical preferences Introducing Elixir into a TypeScript-heavy organization Using Elixir microservices to solve specific technical problems What “soft influence” looks like in engineering teams Building trust through one-on-one conversations Knowing when influence is working and when it is not Negotiating technical decisions without turning them into power struggles The relationship between technical competence and interpersonal skill Managing imposter syndrome during pair programming and collaborative work Documentation as a visibility and ownership tool Community involvement, conference speaking, and finding your people Staying curious without burning out Why the human side of software development still matters Links Mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai https://icahn.mssm.edu/ Evernote https://evernote.com/ Joplin https://joplinapp.org/ Book: Elixir in Action by Saša Jurić https://www.manning.com/books/elixir-in-action-third-edition Book: The Little LISPer https://www.scribd.com/doc/263131641/The-Little-Lisper Ellyse's Goatmire Talk https://goatmire.com/speaker/ellyse-cedeno Nerves https://nerves-project.org/ xHain Hack & Makespace in Berlin https://x-hain.de/en/ https://cursor.com/ Haskell Programming Language https://www.haskell.org/ Java Programming Language https://www.java.com/en/ Clojure Programming Language https://clojure.org/ Scheme Programming Language https://www.scheme.org/ TypeScript Programming Language https://www.typescriptlang.org/ Nostrum Library https://hexdocs.pm/nostrum/intro.html Gleam Programming Language https://gleam.run/ Book: Getting Past No by William Ury https://www.williamury.com/getting-past-no/ “The Gambler” by Kenny Rogers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hx4gdlfamo Ted Talk: Do schools kill creativity? | Sir Ken Robinson https://youtu.be/iG9CE55wbtY Ellyse's Codeberg https://codeberg.org/ellyxir Ellyse's Game Server Repo https://codeberg.org/ellyxir/gameserver Goatmire Elixir & NervesConf 2026 https://www.goatmire.com/

On this week's episode of Valley of Depth, we sit down with Ross Fubini, Managing Partner at XYZ Venture Capital, for a conversation about what it actually means to be early in a market nobody believed in. Ross wrote the first check into Anduril in 2016, alongside Founders Fund, before defense tech was a category, before the term sheet wars, and before the word "primes" became a punchline on X. He did it because he'd spent years inside the Palantir network and understood something others couldn't see from the outside: that the company was an unparalleled crucible for entrepreneurial talent, churning out founders who knew how to sell technology to the hardest customer in the world. XYZ has since backed 40+ Palantir alumni across 130+ companies, and the firm now sits at over $1.5B under management. We cover: Why Ross knew Anduril would win from day one and why he still underestimated how big it would get The Palantir thesis: what he saw in that network in 2017 that everyone else missed How the defense tech landscape has gone from "nobody will return your calls" to drunk pirates chasing cash Where the market is overcrowded and where there's significant whitespace How to invest in the SpaceX ecosystem without getting eaten by it What good board work actually looks like when a company is in trouble His case for why the best venture insight is almost always about a market shifting not just a great team • Chapters • 00:00 – Episode Trailer 00:46 – From engineer to investor 04:49 – What Ross saw in Palantir before anyone else was talking about them 06:43 – The founding story and pitch of XYZ 09:42 – How Ross's engineering background informs his investing 14:01 – The market moving around technology 16:14 – What Ross thought would be the outcome of his Anduril investment 17:40 – The truth in the assumption of the US government being a reliable customer in defense tech 23:54 – Anduril vs. other defense tech firms 26:48 – Sectors that Ross is hesitant on 28:35 – Capabilities on Ross's radar 30:02 – SpaceX IPO 33:26 – Investing in an industry with a dominant player 36:19 – How much is Ross focusing on space vs. everything else? 38:42 – Hardest moment Ross has had with a founder 42:10 – How the VC community has evolved since Ross's time at Netscape 44:41 – What does Ross do for fun?   • Show notes • XYZ's' website — https://www.xyz.vc/ Ross's' socials — https://x.com/fubini Mo's socials — https://x.com/itsmoislam Payload's socials — https://x.com/payloadspace / https://www.linkedin.com/company/payloadspace Ignition's socials — https://x.com/ignitionnuclear / https://www.linkedin.com/company/ignition-nuclear/ Tectonic's socials — https://x.com/tectonicdefense / https://www.linkedin.com/company/tectonicdefense/ Valley of Depth archive — Listen: https://pod.payloadspace.com/   • About us • Valley of Depth is a podcast about the technologies that matter — and the people building them. Brought to you by Arkaea Media, the team behind Payload (space), Ignition (nuclear energy), Decoding Bio (biotech) and Tectonic (defense tech), this show goes beyond headlines and hype. We talk to founders, investors, government officials, and military leaders shaping the future of national security and deep tech. From breakthrough science to strategic policy, we dive into the high-stakes decisions behind the world's hardest technologies. Payload: www.payloadspace.com Tectonic: www.tectonicdefense.com Ignition: www.ignition-news.com Decoding Bio: www.decodingbio.com

James Everingham is the CEO and Co-founder of Guild.ai — the AI agent control plane for production teams. With roots at Netscape, Instagram (Head of Engineering), and Meta (Head of Dev Infra, leading a 1,000-person org), James brings rare, hard-won expertise to the challenge of operating AI agents at scale.From Single-Player to Multi-Player: Operating AI Agents at Scale // MLOps Podcast #383 with James Everingham, CEO and Co-founder of Guild.aiIn this episode, James unpacks what actually breaks when you move from a single AI agent to a fleet of them — and what engineering leaders need to build before it's too late.

What was Ryan's first academic love in high school? What opportunity did Ryan uncover by responding to a Craigslist advertisement? Why did Ryan decide to return to his original path after an enjoyable stint in consulting? What attribute of MIT culture appealed to Ryan and convinced him to apply to Sloan for an MBA? What part-time job did Ryan land at MIT that gave him special insight into the campus's eccentricities? How did Ryan end up founding a screen writing software business? How did Ryan pivot this failed idea into a lucrative marketplace business? What hard lesson about unit economics did Ryan learn during this period? How did Ryan connect the dots between data, B2B, and climate policy to start a new tech business? What did Ryan admire about Stripe that he applied to the permit data space with Shovels? Why is collecting and aggregating local building permit data so challenging? What insights has Shovels uncovered around permit activity and different types of climate disasters? What is the permit cloud that Shovel's is uncovering that indicates early signal about a larger infrastructure project? How is Shovels providing insight into available trade resources for intensive projects such as data centers? Ryan Buckley - CEO and co-founder of Shovels, joins Proptech Espresso to answer these questions and discuss how his early childhood interest in roller hockey exposed him to the parking lots of seminal internet titans like Netscape and Silicon Graphics.

Sandesh Patnam of Premji Invest joins Nick to discuss The Downstream Effects of SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic Soaking Up $3T in the Public Market, Who Is Netscape and Who Is Google in the AI Era, and the Impact of Private Credit Redemption Requests on PE and VC. In this episode we cover: Themes and Dynamics of the Current AI Shift Investment Opportunities and Challenges Thesis and Focus at Premji Invest Advice for AI Companies and Public Markets Impact of Mega IPOs on Private Markets Challenges in Private Equity and Private Credit Listening as a Secret Weapon Guest Links: Sandesh's LinkedIn Sandesh's X Premji Invest's LinkedIn Premji Invest's Website The host of The Full Ratchet is Nick Moran of New Stack Ventures, a venture capital firm committed to investing in founders outside of the Bay Area. We're proud to partner with Ramp, the modern finance automation platform. Book a demo and get $150—no strings attached.   Want to keep up to date with The Full Ratchet? Follow us on social. You can learn more about New Stack Ventures by visiting our LinkedIn and Twitter.

Marc Andreessen is a co-founder and general partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, co-creator of the Mosaic internet browser and co-founder of Netscape, and author of “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto.”www.youtube.com/@a16zhttps://pmarca.substack.comhttps://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/www.a16z.com Perplexity: Download the app or ask Perplexity anything at https://pplx.ai/rogan. Great Coffee, Great Mission – Black Rifle Coffee is America's Coffee. Visit https://blackriflecoffee.com/joerogan today to get 30% off your next order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dive into a special episode with Dato' Dr. Sean SEAH, a serial tech entrepreneur, satellite innovator, and global technology leader, as he shares insights on digital transformation, space technology, entrepreneurship, and leadership for the future of Malaysia and beyond.With experience spanning Silicon Valley companies such as Sun Microsystems and Netscape, Dato' Dr. Sean SEAH has played a key role in advancing Malaysia's digital and space ambitions. As the founder of Angkasa-X and Chairman of WITSA, he is passionate about using technology to create social inclusion, connect underserved communities, and inspire future generations to dream boldly and innovate fearlessly.

In this spotlight episode of Diana Brandl's Executive Office Insights, Anne Marie Otañez details her intentional career path, moving from early roles at Netscape, Disney, and Apple to her current strategic position.Learn what it truly means to be a Chief of Staff—a trusted partner, liaison, confidant, and proxy—and the importance of clearly defining the role against that of an Executive Assistant. Anne Marie, who is also an author and the founder of the Chief of Staff Academy, shares how she supports senior leaders, manages a 100% remote work environment with intentional travel, and her goal to build a sustainable family business. Tune in to Episode #375 for insider knowledge and new perspectives on leadership and executive support.Show notes → leaderassistant.com/375--It's the last day of the offsite and it was exactly what the team needed. The CEO pulls you aside to say, “Thank you. This was next level.”Your secret? You used Offsite. They handled the venues, negotiations, and logistics – so you could focus on shaping the experience.Sound too good to be true? It's actually within reach. (And it can even save you money.)See how at leaderassistant.com/offsite. --Are you ready to level up? Enroll in The Leader Assistant Academy at leaderassistant.com/academy to embrace the Leader Assistant frameworks used by thousands of assistants.More from The Leader Assistant...Book, Audiobook, and Workbook -> leaderassistantbook.comThe Leader Assistant Academy -> leaderassistantbook.com/academy Premium Membership -> leaderassistant.com/membershipEvents -> leaderassistantlive.comFree Community -> leaderassistant.com/community

In this episode of This Old Marketing, Joe and Robert dig into OpenAI's very rough week. From missed targets and questions about future contract payments to legal proceedings involving Elon Musk, the company suddenly looks a lot less inevitable than it did just a few months ago. Then OpenAI launches a self-service advertising platform, which leads Joe to ask the big question: Is ChatGPT turning into Yahoo? Robert sees it a little differently, arguing that the better comparison may be Netscape. Either way, the boys agree that OpenAI may be trying to do too many things at once while Anthropic continues to gain ground. Next, Joe and Robert discuss Coinbase and its latest round of layoffs. The company says AI is part of the reason, but is that the real story, or just a convenient excuse? They also look at the strong performance from Uber and Disney, and what it may say about the rise of local and regional experiences in today's service economy. In Marketing Winners and Losers, Heineken gets attention, and the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District makes another appearance as a surprisingly effective content and social media operator. In Rants and Raves, Joe honors Ted Turner and his incredible impact on marketing, media and publishing. Robert closes with a rant about the California governor's race and what it says about media, politics and the state of public discourse. Subscribe and Follow: Follow Joe Pulizzi and Robert Rose on LinkedIn for insights, hot takes, and weekly updates from the world of content and marketing.  ------- This week's sponsor: Did you know that most businesses only use 20% of their data? That's like reading a book with most of the pages torn out. Point is, you miss a lot. Unless you use HubSpot. Their customer platform gives you access to the data you need to grow your business. The insights trapped in emails, call logs, and transcripts.  All that unstructured data that makes all the difference. Because when you know more, you grow more. Visit https://www.hubspot.com/ to hear how HubSpot can help you grow better. ------- Get all the show notes: https://www.thisoldmarketing.com/ Get Joe's new book, Burn the Playbook, at http://www.joepulizzi.com/books/burn-the-playbook/ Subscribe to Joe's Newsletter at https://www.joepulizzi.com/signup/. Get Robert Rose's new book, Valuable Friction, at https://robertrose.net/valuable-friction/  Subscribe to Robert's Newsletter at https://seventhbearlens.substack.com/ ------- This Old Marketing is part of the HubSpot Podcast Network: https://www.hubspot.com/podcastnetwork

Matthew McQueeny sits down with Jordan Kanter for a conversation about Chicago, sports, technology, data, AI, and what it means to stay human in a rapidly changing digital world. Jordan shares stories from growing up in the Chicago area during the Michael Jordan Bulls era, visiting iconic John Hughes movie locations, and discovering technology through VCRs, early Apple computers, Netscape, Linux, and open-source culture. From there, the conversation moves into his path from pre-med and psychology into data, analytics, consulting, and digital experience work. The episode explores how Jordan's background as a childhood cancer survivor shaped his perspective, empathy, and sense of resilience. Matthew and Jordan also discuss how DXP, CMS, data, and martech professionals may be uniquely positioned for the AI era because they have spent years working close to real human problems, not just technology for technology's sake. The conversation closes with Jordan's thoughts on AI as both a powerful tool and a disruptive force, his work with Traya Performance Academy, and how he is thinking about enterprise AI, local models, human-centered technology, and the next generation of AI-native kids.

Dit verhaal was eigenlijk totaal anders ingestoken, maar ja, live loopt het wel eens anders. Dus zijn we maar van de knalcijfers van TSMC naar het nieuwste meme-aandeel in chipvastgoed gelopen (ja), om af te sluiten met enige bespiegelingen op Sam Altman en zijn geldhonger. Oorspronkelijk was je beursnerd van plan om een verhaaltje te houden over de intellectuele arbeid die het vereist om goed te beleggen. Dus laten we dat dan maar in tekst uit de doeken doen, voor de enkeling die shownotes leest! We lazen in de voorgaande weken overal over Michael Pollan, hoogleraar wetenschapsjounalistiek en boekenschrijver die naar eigen zeggen veel studenten aanzet tot het maken van bijzondere moleculaire reisjes. Zijn nieuwe boek gaat over bewustzijn, dus maakt hij nu een wereldtourtje met interviews, podcasts, artikelen en de rest. Helaas blijkt het verhaal teleurstellend. Hij somt wat bevindingen van Descartes op, hij praat wat over AI, hij vertelt je dat het opschrijven van je eigen gedachtestroom betrekkelijk domme resultaten oplevert en dan is je podcastuurtje en je boekhoofdstuk weer voorbij. Aanschouw het vooral nog een keer, maar zet het vooral snel uit. Over bewustzijn kan je debatteren. Maar of je het nou speciaal vindt of helemaal niet, of je het nou een onbenullig resultaat van onze ervaring noemt dat optreedt als neuronen aanvoelen wat andere neuronen aanvoelen, of dat je het een essentiële eigenschap van de mens noemt: Michael Pollan heeft niet zoveel toe te voegen aan het debat. Zie ook zijn interview in De Tijd, dat werd 'geselecteerd' door het FD. Een intellectueel nederige conclusie is dat de exacte wetenschap nog niet ver genoeg is gevorderd om het fenomeen dat we bewustzijn noemen te vangen. En dat we dus meestal op filosofen aan zijn gewezen, voor het gemak de wiskundigen van de onregelmatige werkelijkheid, die frames bouwen waarmee je kan nadenken over het fenomeen. Augustinus was daar in de vierde eeuw betrekkelijk simpel over. Hij schreef dat de wens de vader is van de gedachte. In moderne pseudowetenschappelijke taal zou dat zoiets betekenen als 'je reptielenbrein wil wat en een stel andere breinfuncties zorgen ervoor dat je die wens kan rechtvaardigen en om kan zetten in handelingen zodat je 't nog krijgt ook'. Zoiets. Dat brengt ons bij Sam Altman, waar we ook in voorgaande weken over lazen. The New Yorker, het snobblaadje met het mooiste artikel over factchecking dat er ooit is geschreven, had zo'n 16.000 woorden nodig om ons te vertellen wat we allemaal al wisten: Sam Altman is bereid om alles te zeggen tegen iedereen, zolang het hem maar meer kapitaal oplevert om OpenAI uit te bouwen. Saöedische investeerders, het Pentagon, zijn concurrenten, Elon Musk, zijn eigen bestuur (voorzover het niet is ontslagen nadat het hem ontsloeg): iedereen krijgt te horen wat ze willen horen. Dat AI alles kapot gaat maken, dat AI alles gaat redden, het verschilt met de dag. Kortom: Sam Altman belichaamt het principe van Augustinus. De wens is de vader van zijn gedachte. De bullshit die volgt is de moeder van het nieuwe datacenter waarmee Altman zijn bedrijf verder brengt. Is OpenAI het Netscape van de AI, de innovatieve webbrowser die door Internet Explorer compleet aan de kant werd gebeukt, of is OpenAI het nieuwe Microsoft van de AI? Wie het weet mag het zeggen. Maar Sam heeft altijd meer geld nodig om überhaupt een antwoord op die vraag mogelijk te maken. Beleggers moeten het tegenovergestelde doen van wat Altman doet. Want de wens is nooit de vader van een goede belegging. Investeren is één van de meest pure intellectuele spelletjes die je kan spelen, want je wordt getraind om al je mentale bagage, wensen, emoties en de rest aan de kant te zetten. Er telt maar één vraag: komen mijn inschattingen overeen met de werkelijkheid? Wie daarvan afwijkt, is af. Dat verklaart overigens ook waarom de doorgaans conservatieve medemens dit liever doet dan de progressieve medemens. De conservatief wijst op wat-er-is, en hoe je de lelijkheid daarvan kan beteugelen. De progressief wil de wereld graag voorstellen zoals hij zou-kunnen-zijn, en hoe je die grotere schoonheid bereikt. Dat laatste is het nobeler streven van de twee. En noodzakelijk voor een betere wereld. Maar je snapt meteen waarom conservatieven vaker beleggen dan progressieven. Het mooie aan het spelletje is dat het vooral een emotionele eerlijkheid vereist. Want de intellectuele eerlijkheid die je in alle investeerboekjes kan vinden, wordt pas echt beleden als je de hele dag aan jezelf toegeeft welke van je gedachten een wens is, en welke een kenbaar feit. Je moet als belegger de hele dag aan jezelf toegeven dat je McDonald's eet omdat je vet eten wil, dat je rookt omdat je verslaafd bent, dat je YouTube-filmpjes met bekende beleggers kijkt omdat dat leuk voelt in plaats van dat je er slimmer van wordt, en dat je soms stoere feitjes vertelt omdat je slimmer wil lijken. Niet omdat dat meteen wat oplevert.  Alle voorgaande zonden is uw beursnerd natuurlijk nog nooit begaan, dat snapt u wel. Ken je de cijfers echt? Snap je wel wat die betekenen in de realiteit? Kan je het verhaal van het bedrijf door de cijfers heen lezen? Snap je welke externe factoren invloed hebben op dat verhaal en diezelfde cijfers? Zou je een grillsessie van Warren Buffett doorstaan? Durf je te vertellen wat je weet en niet weet aan een zaal van 10.000 geïnformeerde beleggers voordat je een aandeel koopt? Misschien het allermooiste aan het intellectuele spel dat eigenlijk een emotionele eerlijkheid behelst is dat het de rest van het leven ook beter maakt. Geen mens houdt het vol om alle zelfdeceptie 24 uur per dag overboord te gooien, maar de beste beleggers op aarde hebben er toch een aardige gooi naar gedaan. Van Druckenmiller tot Buffett, van Chris Hohn tot Joel Tillinghast. Het succes van een goede belegger kan zeker worden afgemeten aan rauwe intelligentie, en aan het vermogen om de juiste informatie te vinden, maar nog véél meer aan de emotionele eerlijkheid die je in staat stelt om je inschattingen overeen te laten komen met de werkelijkheid. Doe dus gewoon het tegenovergestelde van Sam Altman en je ziet je resultaten zienderogen verbeteren.  Maar ja, voor dit geschreven verhaal hadden we geen tijd vandaag! Beursnerd en Beursnerd XL  Iedere werkdag iets na elf uur werpt de Beursnerd in gesprek met presentator Thomas van Zijl een blik op de AEX, waarbij hij of zij de diepgang niet schuwt. Daarnaast is er donderdag om tien voor twaalf een langere beursanalyse. Die neemt Beursnerd XL Jochem Visser voor zijn rekening.

In this epsidode Patrick, Phil, and Nathan talk about the pros and cons of various homepages through time and a deep dive on the song "Are you Jimmy Ray?"

Fresh off raising a monster $15B, Marc Andreessen has lived through multiple computing platform shifts firsthand, from Mosaic and Netscape to cofounding A16z. In this episode, Marc joins swyx and Alessio in a16z's legendary Sand Hill Road office to argue that AI is not just another hype cycle, but the payoff of an “80-year overnight success”: from neural nets and expert systems to transformers, reasoning models, coding, agents, and recursive self-improvement. He lays out why he thinks this moment is different, why AI is finally escaping the old boom-bust pattern, and why the real bottleneck may be less about models than about the messy institutions, incentives, and social systems that struggle to absorb technological change.This episode was a dream come true for us, and many thanks to Erik Torenberg for the assist in setting this up. Full episode on YouTube!We discuss:* Marc's long view on AI: from the 1980s AI boom and expert systems to AlexNet, transformers, and why he sees today's moment as the culmination of decades of compounding technical progress* Why “this time is different”: the jump from LLMs to reasoning, coding, agents, and recursive self-improvement, and why Marc thinks these breakthroughs make AI real in a way prior cycles were not* AI winters vs. “80-year overnight success”: why the field repeatedly swings between utopianism and doom, and why Marc thinks the underlying researchers were mostly right even when the timelines were wrong* Scaling laws, Moore's Law, and what to build: why he believes AI scaling laws will continue, why the outside world is messier than lab purists assume, and how startups can still create durable value on top of rapidly improving models* The dot-com crash and AI infrastructure risk: Marc's comparison between today's AI capex boom and the fiber/data-center overbuild of 2000, plus why he thinks this cycle is different because the buyers are huge cash-rich incumbents and demand is already here* Why old NVIDIA chips may be getting more valuable: the pace of software progress, chronic capacity shortages, and the idea that even current models are “sandbagged” by supply constraints* Open source, edge inference, and the chip bottleneck: why Marc thinks local models, Apple Silicon, privacy, trust, and economics all point toward a major role for edge AI* American vs. Chinese open source AI: DeepSeek as a “gift to the world,” why open models matter not just because they're free but because they teach the world how things work, and how open source strategies may shift as the market consolidates* Why Pi and OpenClaw matter so much: Marc's claim that the combination of LLM + shell + filesystem + markdown + cron loop is one of the biggest software architecture breakthroughs in decades* Agents as the new “Unix”: how agent state living in files allows portability across models and runtimes, and why self-modifying agents that can extend themselves may redefine what software even is* The future of coding and programming languages: why Marc thinks software becomes abundant, why bots may translate freely across languages, and why “programming language” itself may stop being a salient concept* Browsers, protocols, and human readability: lessons from Mosaic and the web, why text protocols and “view source” mattered, and how similar principles may shape AI-native systems* Real-world OpenClaw use: health dashboards, sleep monitoring, smart homes, rewriting firmware on robot dogs, and why the most aggressive users are discovering both the power and danger of agents first* Proof of human vs. proof of bot: why Marc thinks the internet's bot problem is now unsolvable via detection alone, and why biometric + cryptographic proof of human becomes necessaryTimestamps* 00:00 Marc on AI's “80-Year Overnight Success”* 00:01 A Quick Message From swyx* 01:44 Inside a16z With Marc Andreessen* 02:13 The Truth About a16z's AI Pivot* 03:29 Why This AI Boom Is Not Like 2016* 06:33 Marc on AI Winters, Hype Cycles, and What's Different Now* 10:09 Reasoning, Coding, Agents, and the New AI Breakthroughs* 12:13 What Founders Should Build as Models Keep Improving* 16:33 AI Capex, GPU Shortages, and the Dot-Com Crash Analogy* 24:54 Open Source AI, Edge Inference, and Why It Matters* 33:03 Why OpenClaw and PI Could Change Software Forever* 41:37 Agents, the End of Interfaces, and Software for Bots* 46:47 Do Programming Languages Even Have a Future?* 54:19 AI Agents Need Money: Payments, Crypto, and Stablecoins* 56:59 Proof of Human, Internet Bots, and the Drone Problem* 01:06:12 AI, Management, and the Return of Founder-Led Companies* 01:12:23 Why the Real Economy May Resist AI Longer Than Expected* 01:15:53 Closing ThoughtsTranscriptMarc: Something about AI that causes the people in the field, I would say, to become both excessively utopian and excessively apocalyptic. Having said that, I think what's actually happened is an enormous amount of technical progress that built up over time. And like for, for example, we now know that neural network is the correct architecture.And I, I will tell you like there was a 60 year run where that was like a, you know, or even 70 years where that was controversial. And so, so the way I think about what's happening is basically, I think, I think about basically the, the, the period we're in right now is it's, I call it 80 year overnight success, right?Which is like, it's an overnight success ‘cause it's like bam, you know, chat GPT hits and then, and then oh one hits, and then, you know, open claw hits and like, you know, these are open, these are, these are like overnight, like radical, overnight transformative successes, but they're drawing on an 80 year sort of wellspring backlog, you know, of, of, of, of ideas and thinking it's not just that it's all brand new, it's that it's an unlock of all of these decades of like very serious, hardcore research.If I were 18, like this is a hundred, this is what I would be spending all of my time on. This is like such an incredible conceptual breakthrough.swyx: Before we get into today's episode, I just have a small message for listeners. Thank you. We will not be able to bring you the ai, engineering, science, and entertainment contents that you so clearly want if you didn't choose to also click in and tune into our content.We've been approached by sponsors on an almost daily basis, but fortunately enough of you actually subscribed to us to keep all this sustainable without ads, and we wanna keep it that way. But I just have one favor to ask all of you. The single, most powerful, completely free thing you can do is to click that subscribe button.It's the only thing I'll ever ask of you, and it means absolutely everything to me and my team that works so hard to bring the in space to you each and every week. If you do it, I promise you will never stop working to make the show even better. Now, let's get into it.Alessio: Hey everyone, welcome to the Lidian Space Pockets. This is CIO, founder Kernel Labs, and I'm joined by s Swix, editor of Lidian Space.swyx: Hello. And we're in a 16 Z with a, uh, mark G and welcome.Marc: Yes, yes. A and what, half of 16? Something like that. A one. Exactly,swyx: exactly. Uh, apparently this is the, the final few days in your, your current office.You're moving across the road.Marc: Uh, we're, yeah. We have a, we have some, we have some projects underway, but yeah, this is actually, oh, this is the original. We're in actually the original office. We're in the, we're in the, we're, we're in the whole thing.swyx: It's beautiful. Yeah. Great.Marc: Thank you.swyx: So I have to come out, uh, this is a, you know, I wanted to pick a spicy start in October, 2022.I just made friends with Roone and, uh, I wanted to give him something to sort of be spicy about. And I said, uh. Uh, it'll never not be funny. The A 16 Z was constantly going. The future is where the smart people choose to spend their time and then going deep into crypto and not in ai. And that was in October 22nd, 2022.And Ruen says there was an internal meeting in a 16 Z to reorient around Gen ai. Obviously you have, but was there a meeting? What, what was that?Marc: I mean, I don't, look, I've been doing AI since the late eighties.swyx: Yeah.Marc: So I, I don't know, like all that, as far as I'm concerned, this stuff is all Johnny cum lately.Yeah. You, I mean, look, we've been doing ar entire existence. I mean, we've been doing AI machine learning deep, you know, deeply. We've been doing this stuff way from the beginning. Obviously a AI is just core to computer science. I, I, I actually view them as like quite, uh, quite continuous. Um, you know, Ben and I both have computer science degrees.Um, you know, we, we both, Ben, Ben and I actually both are world enough to remember the actual AI boom in the 1980s. Yeah. There was like a, there was a big AI boom at the time. Um, and there was a, was names like expert systems. Um, and they of like lisp and lisp machines. Uh, I, I coded in lisp. I was coding a lisp in 1989.When that was the, the language of the AI future. Um, yeah. So this is something that we're like completely, you completely comfortable with. I've been doing the whole time and are very enthusiastic aboutswyx: is there a strong, like this time is different because, uh, my closest analog was 20 16 17. It was an AI boom.Mm-hmm. And it petered out very, very quickly. Um, we, it just, it just in terms of investingMarc: sort of, sort of,swyx: yeah. Investment, investment excitement.Marc: Although that's really when the, the, the Nvidia phenomenon really, it was, I would say it was in that period when it was very clear that at, at the time it, the vocabulary was more machine learning, but it, it was very clear at that time that machine learning was hitting some sort of takeoff point.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: Well, and as you guys, you guys have talked about this at length on, on your thing, but, you know, if you really track what happened, I think the real story is, it was, it was the Alex net, uh, basically breakthrough in like 2013. That was the, that was the real knee in the curve. Um, and then it was obviously the transformer breakthrough in 17.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: Um, and then everything that followed. But, but, you know, look, machine learning, you know, there were, you know, look, uh, I mean look, I've been working, you know, I've been working with, uh, one of my, you know, kind of projects working with Facebook since 2004. Um, and on the board since 2007, and of course, you know, they, they started using machine learning very early, um, and, you know, have used it basically, you know, for like 20 years for, you know, content, you know, feed optimization and advertising optimization.And obviously many, you know, financial services. You know, many, many, many companies, many different sectors have been doing this. And so it's like one of these things, it's like, it's not a, it's not a single thing. Like it's, it's like, it's like layers, right? Yeah. Um, and, and the layers arrive at different paces and, but they kind of build up.swyx: Yeah.Marc: Uh, they kind of build up over time and then, and then, yeah. And then look, in retrospect, it was 2017 was kind of the, you know, the key, the key point with the trans transformer and then. And then as you guys know, there was this really weird like four year period where it's like the, the transformer existed and then it was just like,swyx: let's go.Yeah.Marc: Well, but, but it was just, but, but between 2020, but between 2017 and 2021, I mean, that was the era of which like companies like Google had internal chat Botts, but they weren't letting anybody use them.swyx: Yeah.Marc: Right. And then, you know, and then OpenAI developed Chat GT or GPT two, and then they told everybody, this is way too dangerous to deploy.Right. Yeah. You know, we can't possibly let normal people, normal people use this thing. And then you, you guys, I'm sure remember AI Dungeon, um mm-hmm. So the o for, there was like a year where like the only way for a normal person to use GP T three was in, in AI dungeon.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: And so you, you, we would do this, you'd go in there and you'd pretend to play Dungeons and Dragons.In reality, you're just trying to talk to talk to GPT. And so there was this, you know, there was this long, you know, and I, you know, the big, big companies, you know, big companies are cautious and, you know, the big companies were cautious. It, it, by the way, it took open ai. You know, they, they, they talk about this, it took open AI time to actually adjust, you know, kind of re redirect their researchswyx: path.I, I think, uh, let say Rosewood, right? Uh, the, the dinner that founded OpenAI was right there.Marc: Right, right. But that, that dinner would've taken place in 20swyx: 18Marc: 19. The formation of OpenAI Uhhuh as late as 2018.swyx: Uh, uh, sorry. Uh, no, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm wrong. Probably It should be 20. Yeah. They just celebrated a 10 year anniversary, so it it is 2025.Yeah, so, so 2015?Marc: Yeah. 2015. Yeah. 2015. But then, uh, um, Alec Radford did G PT one in what, probablyswyx: mm-hmm. 17, 18,Marc: yeah. 17, 18. So it, yeah. For, and then, and then they didn't really, and then GPT three was what? 2020? 2020.swyx: 2020.Marc: Because that became copilot immediately. Even open ai, which has been, you know, the leader of, of this thing in the last decade, you know, e even they had to adapt and, and, and lean into the new thing.And so. Um, yeah, I, I think it's just this process of basically sort of wave after wave layer after layer, you know, building on itself. And then you kind of get these catalytic moments where, where the whole thing pops and, and obviously that's what's happening now.swyx: Is it useful to think about will there be any ai, winter?‘cause there's always these patterns. Like, is this, in the summer is something I constantly think about because do I get, do I just like. Just get endlessly hyped and just trust that I will only be early and never wrong or right. Well, are we, will there be a winter?Marc: So there's something about, say the following.There's something about AI that has led to this repeated pattern. Um, and, and, and you guys know this,swyx: it's summer, winter, summer,Marc: winter, summer, winter, summer, winter. And it goes back 80 years. Yeah. 80 years. Uh, so the original neural network paper was 1943. Right. Which is, which is amazing. Uh, that it was, it was far back that long.And then there was you, if you guys have ever talked about this on your show, but there was this, uh, there was a big, uh, there was an a GI conference at Dartmouth University in 1950. 55. 55, yeah. And they got a NSF grant to, uh, for the, all the AI experts at the time to spend the summer together. And they figured if they had 10 weeks together, they could get a GI, uh, at the other end.And they got their, by the way, they got the grant, they got the 10 weeks and then, you know, 1955, you know. No, no. A GI. And like I said, I, I lived through the eighties version of this where there was a big, a big boom and a crash. And so, so there is this thing, and there, there is something about AI that causes the people in the field, I would say, to become both excessively utopian and excessively apocalyptic.Um, and, and it's probably on both sides of like the, the, the boom bus cycle. You, you kind of see that play out. Having said that, I think what's actually happened is like just, and you know, and we now know in retrospect like an enormous amount of technical progress that built up over time. And like for, for example, we now know that neural network is the correct architecture.And I, I will tell you like there was a 60 year run where that was like a, you know, or even 70 years or that was controversial. And, and we now know that that's the case. And so we, we now, you know, everything we're building on today just sort of derives from the original idea in 1943. And so, so in retrospect, we, we now know that like, these, these guys are right.They, they, you know, they would get the timing wrong and they thought, you know, capabilities would arrive faster, or they were, it could be turned into businesses sooner or whatever, but like, they were fundamentally, the, the scientists who worked on this over the course of decades were fundamentally correct about what they were doing.And, and the, and the payoff from, from, from all their work is happening now. And so, so the way I think about what's happening is basically, I think, I think about basically the, the, the period we're in right now is it's, I call it 80 year overnight success, right? Which is like, it's an overnight success.‘cause it's like bam, you know, chat, GPT hits and then, and then oh one hits, and then, you know, open claw hits and like, you know, these are open, these are, these are like overnight, like radical, overnight transformative successes, but they're drawing on an 80 year sort of wellspring backlog, you know, of, of, of, of ideas and thinking it's not just that it's all brand new, it's that it's an unlock of all of these decades of like very serious, hardcore research.Um, and thinking, and look, there were AI researchers who spent their entire lives. They got their PhD. They, they worked for, they've researched for 40 years. They retired in a lot of cases, they passed away and they never actually saw it work.swyx: Yeah. It's all sad.Marc: It is. It is sad. It's sad. Knewswyx: Jeff Hinton was like the last guy.Marc: Yeah. Yeah. Well, there were the guys, uh, was a guy, Alan Newell. I mean, there's tons of John McCarthy. You know, John McCarthy was like one of the inventors in the field. He's one of the guys who organized the Dartmouth Conference and you know, he taught at Stanford for 40 years. Wow. And passed, you know, passed away, I don't know, whatever, 10, 10 years ago or something.Never, never actually go. Got to see it happen. But like, it is amazing in retrospect, like, these guys were incredibly smart and they worked really hard and they were correct. So anyway, so then it's like, okay, you know, say history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. It's like, okay, does that mean that there's gonna be another, like, you know, basically boom buzz cycle.And I, I will tell you, like, let, like in a sense, like yes, everything goes through cycles and, you know, people get overly enthusiastic and overly depressed and there's, there's a time, there's a timelessness to that. Having said that, there's just no question. Um, so the form, the foremost dangerous words in investing this time are, this time is different.Do you know the 12 most dangerous words investing? No. The four most d foremost dangerous words in investing are this time is different. Yeah. Um, the 12 most dangerous words. And so like, I'll tell you what's different. Like now it's working like, like there's just no, I mean, look, there's just no question.And by the way, I, I'll just give you guys my take. Like L LLMs, like from, from basically the Chad G PT moment through to spring of 25. I think you could still, I think well intention, well, and of. Form skeptics could still say, oh, this is just pattern completion. And oh, these things don't really understand what they're doing.And you know, the hall hallucination rates are way too high. And, you know, this is gonna be great for creative writing and creating, you know, Shakespeare and so sonnets and, you know, as, as rap lyrics or whatever, like, it's gonna be great and all that stuff, but we're not gonna be able to harness this to make this relevant in, you know, coding or in medicine or in law or in, you know, you know, kind of feels that, you know, kind of really, really matter.And I think basically it was the reasoning breakthrough. It, it was oh one and then R one that basically answered that question basically said, oh no, we're gonna be able to actually turn this into something that's gonna work in the real world. And, and then obviously the coding breakthrough over the, over basically the coding breakthrough that kind of catalyzed over the holiday break was kind of the third step in that.Mm-hmm. Where you're just like, alright, if, if, you know, if Linus Tova is saying that the AI coding is no better than he is like. Like, that's, that's never happened before. That's theswyx: benchmark.Marc: Yeah. That's never happened before. And so now we know that it's, it's gonna sweep through coding and, and then, and then we, we know, you know, we know that if it's gonna work in coding, it's gonna work in everything else.Right. It's just then, because that's, that's like, that's like, that's like the hardest in many ways. That's the hardest example. And how everything else is gonna be a, a derivative of that. And then on top of that, we just got the agent breakthrough, you know, with Open Claw, which is fantastic. Which is amazing and incredibly powerful.And then we just got the, the, um, the auto research, uh, you know, the, the self-improvement. You know, we're now into the self-improvement breakthrough. And so the, so the way I think about it is we've had four fundamental breakthroughs in functionality, l OMS reasoning, uh, agents, um, and then, uh, and, and then now RSI, um, and, and they're all actually working.Um, and so I'm, I'm just, as you like, you can tell I'm jumping outta my shoes. Like, like this is, like this is it like this, this is the culmination of 80 years worth of worth of work, and this is the time it's becoming real.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: I, I'm completely convinced.Alessio: I think the anxiety that people feel is like during the transistor era, yet Mors law, and it's like, all right, we understand why these things are getting better.We understand the physics of it. Yeah. With ai, it's. It's so jagged in like the jumps where like, like you said, it's like in three months you have like this huge jump like, and people are like, well this can keep happening. Right? But then it keeps happening,Marc: it'll keep happening.Alessio: And so like how do you think about also timelines of like what's we're building?I think we always have this question with guests, which is like, you know, should you spend time building harness for a model versus like the next model just gonna do it one shot in the lead space. Right. And how does that inform, like how you think about the shape of the technology? You know, you talk about how it's a new computing platform.If you have a computing platform, then like every six months it like drastically changes in what it looks like. It's hard to build companies on top of it.Marc: Yeah. So, so a couple things. So one is like, look, the, the Moore's law was what we now call a scaling law. Like Moore's Law was a scaling law and for your younger viewers, more Moore's Law was every chip chip chips either get twice as powerful or twice as cheap every, every 18 months.And that, and that and that, you know, that it's gotten more complicated in the last few years. But like that, that was like the 50 year trajectory of, of, of the computer industry. And then, and then by the way, and that's what took the mainframe computer from a $25 million current dollar thing into, you know, the phone in your pocket being, you know, a million times more powerful than that.Like that, you know, for, for 500 bucks. And so that, that was a scaling law. And then, and then, and then key to any scaling law, including Moore's Law and the AI scaling laws is, you know, they're not really laws, right? They're, they're, they're, they're predictions, but when they work, they become self-fulfilling predictions because they, they, they, they, they set a benchmark and, and then the entire industry, right?All the smart people in the industry kind of work to make sure that, that, that actually happens. And so they, they kind of motivate the breakthroughs that are required to, to keep that going. And, and in and in chips, that was a 50 year, that was a 50 year run. Right. And it, it was amazing. And it's still happening in, in some areas of, of chips.I think the same thing is happening with the, the core scaling laws. The core scaling laws. In, in, in ai, you know, they're, they're not really laws, but like they, they are basically. There are predictions and then they're motivating catalysts for the research work that is required to be. And, and, and, and by the way, also the investment, uh, dollars, um, uh, you know, required to basically keep, you know, keep the curves going and, and look, it, it is, it's gonna be complicated and it's gonna be variable and they're, you know, there're gonna be walls that are gonna look like they're fast approaching, and then they're gonna be, you know, engineers are gonna get to work and they're gonna figure out a way to punch through the walls.And obviously that's, you know, that's been happening a lot, you know, and then look, there's gonna be times when it looks like the walls have, you know, the, the, the laws have petered out and then they're gonna, they're gonna pick up again and surge and then, and then, and then it, it appears what's happening to the eyes is there's not multiple, you know, multiple scaling laws.Um, there's multiple areas of improvement. And, and I think, you know, I don't know how many more there are already yet to be discovered, but there are probably some more that we don't know about yet. You know, they, like, for example, there's probably some scaling law around, um, world models and robotics that we don't fully understand, you know, kind of acquisition of data at scale in the real world that we don't fully understand yet.So that, that, that one will probably kick in at some point here. There's a bunch of really smart people working on that. Um, and so, yeah, I, I think the expectation is that, that, you know, the, the scaling laws generally are gonna continue. Yeah. The, the pace of improvement will continue to move really fast.Um. To your question on like what to build. So, uh, I'm a complete believer the scaling laws are gonna continue. I'm a complete believer the capabilities are gonna keep getting amazing, um, you know, leaps and bounds. Uh, the part where I kind of part ways a little bit with how, what I would describe as the AI purists, um, you know, which is, which I would characterize as like the people who are.In many ways, the smartest people in the field, but also the people who spend their entire life, like at a lab, um, and have, have, I would say, have very little experience in the outside world. Um, the, the, the nuance I would offer is the outside world of 8 billion people and institutions and governments and companies and economic systems and social systems is really complicated.Um, and, um, and doesn't, you know, it it 8 billion people making collective decisions on planet Earth is not a simple process of like, just like you see this happening now. It's like a bunch of AI CEOs have this thing, which is just like, well, there's just this, they just all have this kind of thing when they talk in public where they're just like, well, there's these, these obvious set of things that so society to do.Alessio: Mm-hmm.Marc: And then they're like, society's not doing any of those things. Right. And it's like, how can society not, you know, what, whatever their theory is, how can society not see x, y, Z? Mm-hmm. And the answer is, well, society is number one. There's no single society, it's like 8 billion people. And they like all have a voice, and they all have a vote, like at the end of the day of how they, they react to change.And then, you know, it just like, it's just human reality is just really complicated and messy. Um, and, and, and so the specific answer to your question is like, as usual, it depends. Um, you know, it, it depends. Look, pe there's no question people are gonna, like, there's no question they're gonna be companies.It's already happening. There are companies that think that they're building value on top of the models and then they're just gonna get blissed by the, by the next model. There's no question that's happening. But I think there's no question also that just the process of adaptation of any technology into the real and into the real messy world of humanity is, is just going to be messy and complicated.It's, it's not going to be simple and straightforward. It's gonna be messy and complicated. And there are gonna be a lot of companies and a lot of products, um, uh, and in, in fact entire industries that are gonna get built to, to, to basically actually help all of this technology actually reach real people.Alessio: The amount of capital going into these companies, I mean, Dario talked about it on the Door Cash podcast and Door Cash was like, why don't you just buy 10 x more GPUs? And he is like, because I'm gonna go bankrupt if the model doesn't exactly hit the, the performance level. How do you think about that?Also as a risk on, you know, you guys are investors, open AI and thinking machines and world apps. It seems like we're leveraging the scaling loss at a pretty high rate, right? Like how comfortable, I guess, do you feel with the downside scenario, like, and say like things Peter out, you think you can kind of like restructure uh, these build outs and uh, you know, capital investments.Marc: Yeah. So should start by saying, so I live through the.com crash, um, and I can tell you stories for hours about the.com crash and it was horrible. No, it was awful. It was, it was, it was apocalyptic by the way. The, a lot of the.com crash was actually at the time, it was actually a telecom crash. It was a bandwidth crash.Like the, the thing that actually crashed, that wiped out all the money with the tele, the telecom companies.swyx: GlobalMarc: crossing. Global, global, yeah.swyx: I'm from Singapore and they, they laid so much cable o over over our oceans.Marc: Actually there was a scaling law in the.com. Era. And it was literally the, the US Commerce Department put out a report in 1996 and they said internet traffic was doubling every quarter.Um, and, and actually in 1995 and 1996, internet traffic actually did double every quarter. And so that became the scaling law. And so what all these telecom entrepreneurs did was they went out and they raised money to build fiber, anticipating that the demand for bandwidth is gonna keep doubling every quarter.Doubling every quarter though is like, you know, grains of chess and the chessboard, like at some point the numbers become extremely large. Right. And, and, and it really, and really what happened was the internet. The internet by the way, continuously kept growing basically since inception. And it's, you know, it's, it's continuously grown.It's never shrunk. And it's grown really fast compared to anything else. Mm-hmm. You know, in, in, in human history. But it wasn't doubling every quarter as of 19 98, 19 99. And so there was this gap in the expectation of what they thought was a scaling law versus reality. And that's actually what caused the.com crash, which was the, it they, they way over companies like global crossing way overbuilt fiber, which is sort of the, and by the way, fiber, telecom equipment, you know, so all the, all the networking gear, you know, and then, and then by the way, the actual physical data centers, like that was the beginning of the, of the, of the data center build and then, and the data center overbuild.And so you had that, but it was, it was literally, I think it was like $2 trillion got wiped out, right? It was like Jesus, it was like a big, it was. And by the way, the other, the other subtlety in it was the internet companies themselves never really had any debt. ‘cause tech, tech companies generally don't run on debt, but the telecom companies run on debt.Physical infrastructure companies run on debt. And so the companies like Global Crossing not just raise a lot of equity, they also raise a lot of debt. So they're highly levered. And so then you just do the thing. It's just like, okay, you have a highly levered thing where you're, you're just over, you're overbuilding capacity.Demand is growing, but not as fast as you hoped. And then boom, bankrupt. Right. And, and then it, and then it's like they say about the hotel industry, which is, it's always the third owner of a hotel that makes money. It has to go bankrupt twice, right? You have to wash out all of the over optimistic exuberance before it gets to actually a stable state.And then it makes money. So by the way, all of those data centers and all of those, all the fiber that they're in use, it's all in use today. Yeah. But 25 years later. But it, it, it took, and actually the elapsed time was, it took 15 years. It took 15 years from 2000 to 2015 to actually fill, fill up all that capacity.The cautionary warning is the, the overbuild can happen. Um, and, and, and, and, you know, you, you get into this thing where basically everybody, everybody who basically has any sort of institutional capital, it's like, wow. It's just, I, I don't know how to invest in these crazy software things. For sure I can put build data centers and for sure I can buy GPUs that I can deploy, you know, compute grids and, and all these things.Um, and so, you know, if you're a pessimist, you could look at this and you could say, wow, this is like really set up to be able to basically replicate, you know, what we went through, what we went through in 2000. Obviously that would be bad. The counter argument, which is the one I I agree with, which is the counter on, on the other side is a couple things.One is the companies that are investing all the, the companies that are investing the money are like the bluest chip of companies. And so back, back, back in the, in the do, like Global Crossing was like a, it was like an entrepreneur. It was like a, a new venture, but like the money that's being deployed now at scale is Microsoft, and, you know, and Amazon and Google, Facebook and Facebook and Nvidia and, you know, these, these, these, and, and now you know, by the way, open ai philanthropic, which are now at like, you know, really serious size, um, you know, as companies with, you know, very serious revenue.These are very large scale companies with like, lots, lots of cash, lots of debt capacity that they've, they've never used. And so th this is institutional in a way that, that really wasn't at the time. And then the other is, at least for now, every dollar that's being put into anything that results in a running GPU is being turned into revenue right away.Like so, and you guys know this, like everybody's starved for capacity, everybody's starved for compute capacity and then, you know, all the associated things, memory and, and, and interconnected and everything else. Um, data center space. And so e every dollar right now that's being put into the ground is turning into revenue.And, and it, and in fact, I actually think there's an interesting thing happening, which is because everybody starve for capacity, the models that we actually have that we can use today are inferior versions of what we would have if not for the supply constraints. That's true. Um, if Right pose a hypothetical universe in which GPUs were 10 times cheaper and 10 times more plentiful mm-hmm.The models would be much better. ‘cause you would just allocate a lot more money to training and you'd just build better models and they would be better. Um, and so we're, we're actually getting the sandbag version of the technology.swyx: Yeah. No. Everything we use is quantized because the, the labs have to keep the, the full versions,Marc: right?swyx: LikeMarc: we're not even getting the good stuff.swyx: Yeah.Marc: But, but getting the good stuff, it's, it's just, even if technical progress stops. Once there's like a much bigger build of like GPU manufacturing capacity and memory, you know, all, all the things that have to happen in the course of the next five or 10 years.Once it happens, even the current technology is gonna get, gonna get much better. And then as you know, like there's just like a million ways to use this stuff. Like there's just like a million use cases for this. Mm-hmm. Like, it, it, you know, this isn't just sending packets across a, a thing, whatever, and hoping that people find something to do with it.This is just like, oh, we apply intelligence into every domain of human activity. And then it works like incredibly well. Yeah. Um. Here's what I know, here's what I know. Um, in the next three or four year, it's like somewhere between three or four years out, basically everything is selling out. So like the, the entire supply chain is, is, is, is sold out or, or, or selling out.And so there, there's no, like, we're just gonna have like chronic supply shortage for, you know, for years to come. Um, there's going to be a response from the market that's gonna result in an enormous, you know, it's happening now. An enormous flood of investment in a new fab capacity and ev you know, every, everything else to be able to do that, at some point the supply chain constraints will unlock, you know, at least to some degree that will be another accelerant to industry growth when that happens.‘cause the products will get better and everything will get cheaper. Um, and so, so I know that's gonna happen. I know that, you know, the deployments, you know, the, the actual use cases are like really compelling. And then, like I said, you know, with reasoning and agents and so forth, like, I know they're just gonna get like much, much better from here.And so I, I, I know the capabilities are like really real and serious. I also know that the technical progress is not going to stop. It. It, it is excel. It is, is accelerating. Like the, the breakthroughs are are tremendous. I mean, even just month over month, the breakthroughs are really dramatic. And so, you know, I think if you were a cynic and there, there are cynics, you can look at 2000, you can find echoes.But I can't even imagine betting it that this is gonna like somehow disappoint and, you know, at least for years to come, I think it would be essentially suicidal to make that bet. Yeah. Um, it was that Michael Burry, uh, uh, that'sswyx: anMarc: interesting guy, huh? We'll pick on a guy. We'll pick, let's pick on one guy.We'll pick. Well ‘cause he did, he he came out with, it was, it was the, heswyx: doesn't mind.Marc: It was the Nvidia short. Right. He came with the Nvidia short. And then if you guys probably talked about this, which is the, the analysis now that like the current models are getting better faster at such a rate that if you are running an Nvidia, if you're running an Nvidia inference chip today, that's three years old, you're making more money on it today than you did three years ago because the pace of improvement of the software is, is faster than the, the, the depreciation cycle, the chip.And then my understanding is Google is running. I don't if they've, I don't know exactly what, uh, these are rumors that I've heard or maybe it's public, but, um, I think Google's running very old TPUs, very profitably. Ference. Yeah. And very profit and very profitably. Yeah. Um, and so, so it actually turns out, as far as I can tell, it's actually the opposite of the Beery thesis is actually.He was actually 180 degrees wrong. It's actually the, the, the, the old Nvidia chips are getting more valuable, which is something that's like literally never happened before. Like it's never been the case that you have an older model chip that becomes more valuable, not less valuable. And that, and again, that's an expression of the just ferocious pace of software progress.Ferocious pace of capability payoff. Yeah. Uh, that you're getting on the other side of this. And so I just, the idea of betting against that, like.swyx: Yeah. Yeah. Well, one ofMarc: my, it seems like an invitation to get your face ripped up.swyx: One of my early hits was like modeling the lifespan of the H 100 and h two hundreds and, and going like, you know, usually they advise like four to seven years and it was, you know, maybe you sort of realistically haircut cut it down to two to three.Yeah. But actually it's going up and not down. Yeah. And, and uh, that's, I mean that's, I think that's the dream. Uh, we are finding utilization and I think utilization solves all problems. Like, you can, you can find use, use cases for even like the poor, like even memory, we're having a shortage. Right. And, and even like the, the shittier versions of, of memory that we do have, we are finding use cases for it.So like That's great.Marc: Yeah.Alessio: How, how important is open source AI and kinda like edge inference in a world in which you have three years of supply crunch. Like, do you think in the, like, you know, if you fast forward like five years, like how do you think about inference, uh, in the data center versus at the edge?Marc: Well, so just to start, yeah. So I think, I think open source is very important for a bunch of reasons. I think edge, edge inference is very important for a bunch of reasons. I, I think just practically speaking, if we're just gonna have fundamental construc, supply crunches for the next, I mean, you, you guys know if you just project forward demand over the next three years, right?Yeah. Relative to supply, one of the, its main predictions you can do is what's gonna, what, what's gonna happen to the cost of, of inference in the core, uh, over the next three years? And like, it may rise dramatically, right? Like, so, so what is, and then is, is, you know, like the, the, the big model competition are subsidizing heavily right now.Right? Right. And so, so what's the, what will be the average person's, you know, per day, per month token cost, you know, three years from now to do all the things that they want to do. And I, I don't know, it's gonna. I mean, I have, you guys probably have friends, I have friends today who are paying a thousand dollars a day for open claw, for claw tokens to run open claw.Right? And so, okay. $30,000 a month. Right? And, and by the way, those, those friends have like a thousand more ideas of the things that they want their claw to do, right? Yeah. And so you, you could imagine there, there's like latent demand of up to, I don't know, five or $10,000 a day of, of, of tokens for a fully deployed, you know, per personal agent.Uh, and obviously consumers can't pay that, right? And so, so, but it gives you a sense of the fu of the fu of the future scope of demand, right? And so, so even, even if there's a 10 x improvement in price performance, that still, you know, goes to a hundred dollars a day, which is still way beyond what people can pay.Mm-hmm. So there's just gonna be like. Ferocious to me, by the way. The agent thing, the other interesting thing is I think the agent thing, so up until now, a lot of the constraints of GGPU constraints, I think the agent thing now also translates into CPU constraints. Mm-hmm. Right?swyx: CPU memory.Marc: Yes. CPU memory, right?And so, like the entire chip ecosystem is just gonna get wait,swyx: wait for network constraints, that that will be the killer.Marc: It's all bottleneck potentially for years. And so, so I, I think that Brad, and, and I think it's actually possible, I mean, generally inference costs are gonna keep coming down, but I think the, let's put it this way, the rate of decline, I think may level out here for a bit because of these supply constraints.And then at some point, maybe the lab stops subsidizing so much and that, that, that again, will be, be an issue. And so there's just gonna be so much more demand for inference than, than can be satisfied. Um, you know, kind of with the centralized model. And then, and then, you know, you guys know this, but like all the, just the dramatic, I mean just the dramatic innovations that have happened in the Apple silicon to be able to do, uh, inferences, it's quite amazing the level of effort being put.Like the open source guys are putting incredible effort into getting, you know, this recurring pattern where the big model will never run on a pc, and then six months later mm-hmm. Oh, it runs in a pc, right? It's like amazing. And there's very smart people working on that. So there's all that. And then look, there's also, you know.There's also like other, there's other motivators. There's other motivators which is just like, okay, how much trust are the big centralized model providers? You know, how much trust are they building in the market versus, you know, how much are, you know, at least for, in certain cases with some people, for certain use cases, people being like, well, I'm not willing to just like, turn everything over.So there, there, there's all the trust issues. Um, by the way, there's also just like straight up price optimization. There's many uses of AI where you don't need Einstein in the cloud. You just need like a, a a, a smart local model. There's also performance issues where you want, you know, you want, you know, you're gonna want your doorknob to have an AI model in it.Right. You know, to be able to, you know, do, um, you know, to be able to do access control. Um, obviously like everything with a chip is gonna have an AI model in it. Mm-hmm. And it, a lot of those are gonna be local. Um, and so, yeah. No, like I think, I think you're gonna have ti and then you're gonna, by the way, also wearable devices, you know, you don't wanna do a complete round trip.You want, you know, you, whatever your smart devices are, you want it to be like super low latency. Yeah.swyx: The question, do we care who makes it? Yeah. One of the biggest news this week was the collapse of AI two, the Allen Institute. Mm-hmm. One of the actual American open source model labs. Yeah. Um, and, uh, I'm not that optimistic on, on American open source.Yeah. Like you, you guys invested in MIS trial and MIS trial's doing extremely well outside of China. That's about it.Marc: Yeah. We'll see. We'll see. I look, I, number one, I do think we care. Uh, I do think we, I do think we care who makes it. Um, I would say this, the, the, the, the previous presidential administration wanted to kill it in the us Oh yeah.They wanted to drown in the bathtub. Um, and so they wanted to kill it. So at least we have a government now that actually like, actually wants it wants it to happen. And youswyx: earned to councilMarc: and Yeah. And the new and the P pcast. Yeah. So the, the, you know, this admin for whatever other political issues people have, which are many, you know, this administration has, I think a very enlightened view and in particular an enlightened view on AI and in particular on open source ai.Uh, and so they're very supportive. Um, my read is the Chi. The Chinese have a very, the various Chinese companies have a very specific reason to do open source, which is, they, they, they don't fundamentally, they don't think they can sell commercial, uh, AI outside of China right now. And or at least specifically not, not in the US for a combination of reasons.And so they, they kind of view, I think, open source AI as a bit of a loss leader against basically domestic, uh, you know, paid, paid services. And then kind of an, you know, kind of an ancillary products. You know, they're, they're very excited about it, by the way. I think it's great. I think it's great that they're doing it.Um, you know, I think Deeps seek was like a gift to the world. Um, I think. The great thing about open source, open source, the, the, the impact of open source is felt two ways. One is you, you get the software for free, but the other is you get to learn how it works, right? And so like the paper, the paper, the paper and, and the code, right?And the code. And so, like, for example, I thought this was amazing. So open comes out with L one and it's an amazing technical breakthrough, and it's just like, absolutely fantastic. But of course they don't explain how it works in detail. And then of course they hide the, they hide the reasoning traces, right?And, and then, and then, and then everybody's like, okay, this is great, but like, who's gonna be able to replicate this? Are other people gonna be able to do this? You know, is their secret sauce in there? And then our one comes out and it's just like, there's the code and there's the paper, and now the whole world knows how to do it.And then, you know, three months later, every other AI model is, is adding reasoning. And so, so you get this kind of double, like even if the Chinese models themselves are not the models that get used, the education that's taken place to the rest of the world, the information diffusion, you know, is incredibly powerful.So that happens and then, I don't know. We'll, we'll see. You know, there are a bunch of American, you know, open source, you know, ai, uh, model companies. I mean, look, there's gonna be tremendous, you know, there already is. There's, you know, there's gonna be tre there's tremendous competition, uh, among the primary model companies.You know, there's, depending on how you count, there's like four or five, you know, big co model companies now that are, you know, kind of neck and neck, uh, in different ways. Um, uh, you know, and, and, and, um, you know, and then obviously Bo Bo both X and then MetAware involved are, you know, both have huge, you know, huge attempts to, you know, kind of, to kind of leapfrog underway.And then you've got, you know, a whole fleet of startups, new companies, including a whole bunch that we're backing, that are, you know, trying to come out with different approaches. And then you've got whatever it is. I don't know how, how many, how many, like main line foundation model companies are there in China at this point?It's probably six. It'sswyx: five Tigers is what they call it. Yeah. Uh, Quinn is in questionable because there's change in leadership,Marc: right?swyx: Yeah.Marc: But that, does that include, that includes like Moonshot,swyx: yes. Can deep seek, uh, uh, ZI, um, Quinn oh one is in there.Marc: Right. And then, um, and by dance and, and then you see,swyx: ance would be like the next tier ance.They weren't as prominent. They weren't, didn't haveMarc: a leading. Yeah. But they, you at least, you know, ance is very inspiring and presumably they have more stuff coming and Tencent probably has more stuff coming and, and so forth. And so, so, so like, look, here, here would be a thing you can anticipate, which is there are not these markets, there are not going to be between the US and China right now, there's like a dozen primary foundation model companies that are like at scale, at, at some level of a critical mass.It's not gonna be a dozen in three years, right? Like, it just because these industries don't bear a dozen, it's, it's gonna be three or you know, there's gonna be three or four big winners or maybe one or two big winners. And so there's gonna be like a whole bunch of those guys that are gonna have to figure out alternate strategies.Um, and I think like open source is one of those strategies. And so I, I think you could see like a whole, i, I, I think the questions like, who's gonna do open source? I think that could change really fast. I, I think that, that, that's a very dynamic thing. I think it's very hard to predict what happens. And, and I think it's very important.swyx: NVIDIA's doing a lot.Marc: Well, I was gonna say. Well, exactly. And then you're got Nvidia and then, and then, you know, just to, again, indu, there's an old thing in business strategy, which is called, uh, commoditize Compliments. Commoditize the compliment. That's right. And so if your Jensen is just kind of obvious, of course, you wanna commoditize the software.Yeah. And he's, and to his enormous credit, he's putting enormous resources behind that. And so maybe it, maybe it's literally Nvidia and I think that would be great.Alessio: Yeah. Uh, narrative violation to European projects, uh, in the, uh, damn.swyx: I'm hosting my, uh, Europe, uh, conference soon. And I got both of them.Alessio: They got us.They got us. MarkMarc: finished. They got us, us. Well, wait a minute. Where was Peter? So where was Steinberger when he did? In AustriaAlessio: was, yeah, yeah, yeah.Marc: He was in what? He was in Vienna. Oh, he was in Vienna. And then where is he now?swyx: Uh, he's moving to sf.Marc: Okay. Okay. Alright. Okay, there we go. And then, yeah, the PI guy, right?The PI guys are European.swyx: Yeah, they're also, they're buddies inAlessio: Australia. Mario's also there. Yeah.Marc: Right. And are they, yeah, they haven't announced yet. Any sort of change changed or have theyAlessio: No, they're, they have a company there.Marc: Okay. Got, okay. Good.Alessio: Good, good,good.Alessio: Um,Marc: yeah, good.swyx: Anyways, I think pie and open cloud very important software things and, and I just wanted you to just go off on what you think.Marc: Yeah. So I think in co the, the combination of the two of them I think is one of the 10 most important softwares. Openswyx: Claw got all the attention, but Right. Talk about pie,Marc: pi pie's, kind of the Yeah. PI's, PI's kind of the architectural breakthrough for those of us who are older. There was this whole thing that was very important in the world of software basically from like 1970 to, I don't know, it still is very important, but like 19, from 1973 to like basically the creation of Linux, which is basically this, this thing used to call like the Unix mindset.Like so, so, ‘cause there were all these different, you know, theories. There are all these different operating systems and mainframes and, and then you know, all these windows and Mac and all these things. And then there was this, but kind of behind it all was this idea of kind of the Unix mindset. And the Unix mindset was this thing where basically you don't have these, like, like in the old days, like, like the operating system that like made the computer industry really work, like in the 1960s mm-hmm.Was this thing called o os 360, which was this big operating system that IBM developed that was supposed to basically run everything. And it was this like giant monolithic architecture in the sky. It was like a, you know, it was like a giant castle. Um, of software. And, and by the way, it worked really well and they were very successful with it.But like, it was this huge castle in the sky, but it was this thing, it was almost unapproachable, which is like, you had to be kind of inside IBM or very close to IBM. And you had to really understand every aspect, how the system worked. And then the, the Unix sky is originally out of at and t and then out out of Berkeley, um, you know, came out and they said, no, let's have a completely different architecture.And the way architecture's gonna work is we're gonna have, we're gonna have a, a prompt and, and a, and a shell. And then, and then we're gonna, all, all the functionality is gonna be in the form of these discreet modules, and then you're gonna be able to chain the modules together. Mm-hmm. Yeah. And so like the, the, the op, it's almost like the operating, operating system itself is gonna be a programming language.Um, and then that led led to the, the, the sort of centrality of the shell. Um, and then that led to sort of, uh, you know, basically chaining together Unix tools. And then that led to the emergence of these, these scripting languages like Pearl, where you, you could basically kind of very easily do this, and then the shells got more sophisticated and then, and then, and then look like, you know, that, that, that number one, that worked and that, that was the world I grew up in.Like I was, I was a Unix guy. You know, sort of from, call it 1988 to, you know, kind of all, all the way through my work and it worked really well. It, it's in the background, um, you know, nor normal people don't need to, didn't need to necessarily know about it, but like, if you were doing like system architecture, application development, you, you, you knew all about it.Um, and then, you know, it's been in the background ever since. And, you know, look, your Mac still has a Unix shell, you know, kind of in there, and your iPhone still has a Unix shell kind of buried in there somewhere. So they're kind of in there. And then, you know, the Windows shell is kind of a, you know, sort of a weird derivative of that.But, um, you know, but look, the inter, the internet runs on Unix, um, and that smartphones, actually, both iOS and Android are Unix derivatives. And so, you know, kind of Unix did end up winning. But, but anyway, and then we just started taking that for granted. And then, and then so, so basically the, the way I think about what happened with Pie and then with Open Claw is basically what those guys figured out is, I always say the, the great breakthroughs are obvious in retrospect, right?Which is the best kind, the best kind. They weren't obvious at the time or somebody else would've done them already. Um, and so there is a, like a real conceptual leap, but then you look at it sort of the backwards looking and you're just like, oh, of course. Mm-hmm. Like the, the, to me those are always the best breakthroughs.Well, actually language models themselves are like that. It's just like, oh, next token completion. Oh, of course.swyx: Yeah. What other objective mattered?Marc: Yeah, exactly. But, but like it, right. But she's even saying it wasn't obvious until somebody actually did it. Right. And so the conceptual breakthrough is real and deep and powerful and, and very important.And so the way I think about pie and olaw is it's basically marrying the, the language model mindset to the un to the Unix, basically shell prompt mindset. And so it's, it's basically this idea that what, what, so what is an agent, right? And as, as, and as you know, like many smart people who have been trying to figure out what an agent is for, for, for decades, and they've had many architectures to build agents and the whole thing.And it turns out what is an agent. So it turns out what we now know is an agent is the following. It's, so it's a language model. And then above that, it's a ba, it's a bash shell. Um, so it's a, it's a Unix shell, and then it's, and then the agent has access, uh, has access to, to the shell. And, you know, hopeful, hopefully in a sandbox, maybe in, maybe in a sandbox.So it's, it's the model. Um, it's the shell. Um, and then it's a fi, it's a file system. Um, and then the state is stored in files. And then, you know, there's the markdown format for the, you know, for, for the files themselves. And then, and then there's basically what in Unix is called Aron job. There's a loop and then there's a heartbeat for the, there's heartbeat and, and the thing basically Wake Wakes up.Wakes up. So it's basically LLM plus shell, plus file system, plus markdown, plus kron. And it turns out that's an agent. And, and, and every part of that, other than the model is something that we already completely know and understand. And in fact, it turns out that like the latent power of the Unix shell is like extraordinary because basically like all, like, there's just like an, there's just enormous latent power in the shell.There's enormous numbers of Unix commands, there's enormous number of command line interfaces into all kinds of things already in the, you know, your entire, I mean your entire, just to start with, your computer runs on a shell. If you're running a Mac or a, or, or a phone, your computer, your computer's running on a shell, uh, already.And so like the full power of your computer is available at the command line level. Um, and then it turns out it's really easy to expose other functions as a command line interface. And so like this whole idea where we need like MCP and these like product mm-hmm. Fancy protocols, whatever, it's like, no, we don't, we just need like a command, command line thing.So that's the architecture. And then it turns out what is your agent? Your agent has a bunch of files starting a file system. And then there's the thing that just like completely blew my mind when I write my head around it as a result of this, which is like, okay. This means your agent is now actually independent of the model that it's running on.Because you can actually swap out a different LLM underneath your agent and your, your agent will change personality somewhat. ‘cause the model is different, but all of the state stored in the files will be retained.swyx: Yeah. Different instruction set, but you just compiledit.Marc: Right, exactly. And it's all right.It's like right. Swapping out a ship and recompiling, but it's, it's still, it's still your agent with all of its memories. Um, and with all of its capabilities. And then by the way, you can also swap out the shell, uh, so you can move it to a different execution environment that is also, is also a b shell, by the way, you can also switch out the file system, right.Uh, and you can, and you can, and you can swap out the, the, the heartbeat for the, the crown framework, the, the loop that the agent framework itself. And so your agent basically is ba basically at the end of the day, it's just. It's just, its files. Um, and then, and then there's of course it a openswyx: call.Marc: Yeah, it's, it's basically, it's, it's just the files.Um, and then by the way, as a consequence of that, the agent and then the agent itself, it turns out a couple important things. So one is it, it's, it, it can migrate itself, right? And so you're, you can instruct your agent, migrate yourself to a different, uh, runtime environment, migrate yourself to a different file system, migrate yourself to a different, you know, swap out the language model.Your agent will do all that stuff for you. And then there's the final thing, which is just amazing, which is the agent is the agent actually has full introspection. It actually, it actually knows about its own files and it could rewrite its own files. Right. Which by the way, is basically no widely deployed software system in history where the, the, the thing that you're using actually has full introspective knowledge of how it itself works and is able to modify itself.Like that, that, I mean, there have been toy systems that have had that, but there, there's never been a widely deployed system that has that capability and then that leads you to the capability. That just like completely blew my mind when I wrap my head around it, which is you can tell the agent to add new functions and features to itself and it can do that.Extend yourself. Yeah. Right? Extend, extend yourself. Like extend yourself. Give yourself a new capability. Right? And so, and so literally it's just like you run into somebody at a party and they're like, oh, I have my open claw, do whatever, connect to my eat, sleep bed, and it gives me better advice and sleep.And you go home at night and you tell your claw, or if they're at the party, by the way, you tell your claw, oh, add this capability to yourself. And your claw will say, oh, okay, no problem. And it'll go out on the internet and it'll figure out whatever it needs and then it'll go out to claw code or whatever.It'll write whatever it needs. And then the next thing you know, it has this new capability. And so you don't even have to, like, you can have it upgrade itself without even having to, without having to do anything other than tell it that you want it to do that. And so anyway, so the, the combination of all this is just, I mean, this is just like a massive, incredible, I mean, it's just incredible.Like if I, if I were, if I were 18, like this is a hundred, this is what I would be spending all of my time on. This is like such an incredible conceptual breakthrough. Yeah. And again, pe people are gonna look at it and they already get this response. People are gonna look at it and they're gonna say, oh, well, where's the breakthrough?‘cause these, the, all of these components were already known before. Mm-hmm. But, but this is the key, the key to the breakthrough was by using all these components that were known before, you get all of the underlying capability of that's buried in there. And so all, and so for example, computer use all of a sudden just kind of falls, trivi, trivial.Of course it's gonna be able to use your computer. It has full access to the shell. Right. And then, and then you just, you, you give it access to a browser, and then you've got the computer and the browser and, and often away it goes. And, and then you've got all the abilities of the browser also. Um, yeah.And so, and so the capability unlock here is profound. My friends who are, you know, deepest into this, are having their claw do like a, like, literally like a thousand things in their lives. They have new ideas every day. They're just like constantly throwing new challenges at the thing. And by the way, it's early and, you know, these are, you know, these are prototypes and there are, you know, as you guys know, there's security issues.Yeah. And, and so, you know, there's a bunch of stuff to be ironed out, but the, the unlock of capability is just incredible.swyx: Yeah.Marc: And I, I have absolutely no doubt that everybody in the world is gonna, is gonna have at least, you know, an agent like this, if not an entire family of agents. And w

Marc Andreessen is a Co-Founder and General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz. The firm now manages over $90BN and has invested in the likes of OpenAI, Airbnb, Coinbase, Anduril and many more. Marc is an innovator and creator, one of the few to pioneer a software category used by more than a billion people and one of the few to establish multiple billion-dollar companies. Marc co-created the Mosaic internet browser and co-founded Netscape (sold to AOL for $4.2 billion). He also co-founded Loudcloud, which as Opsware, sold to Hewlett-Packard for $1.6 billion.  AGENDA: 05:00 — Why Introspection is Overrated: The Dangers of Learning from the Past 08:00 — The One Trait Marc Andreessen Looks For in Every Founder 14:30 — Are the Best Founders Broken? What Makes the Best Founders? 16:00 — "Extreme Ownership": Why Everything Being Your Fault Changes Everything 19:00 — "Do You Read the Comments?" Fame, Criticism & How to Deal with Haters 26:00 — Is Venture Now Go Big or Go Home? The Real Future of VC 30:00 — Does Price Matter Anymore? The Dangerous Truth About Valuations 33:00 — "Stop Chasing Diamonds in the Rough": Why Most VCs Get This Completely Wrong 36:00 — Do You Actually Need to Like Founders? The Uncomfortable Answer 40:00 — Are Companies 75% Overstaffed? The Most Controversial Take on Hiring 45:00 — When Will a16z Go Public?  50:00 — Why Labour Displacement Theory Around AI is Totally Wrong 55:00 — Why Silicon Valley Is More Dominant Than Ever? 01:00:00 — Why a16z Invested $300M into Adam Neumann  01:05:00 — What Still Drives Marc Andreesen? 01:10:00 — What is the Biggest Mistakes VCs Still Make Today?  

Brian Alvey is CTO at WordPress VIP, the enterprise platform trusted by brands such as CNN, Salesforce, Bloomberg, and NBCUniversal (and built on WordPress Open Source, which powers nearly 45% of the internet). Brian is also one of the internet's original builders and leaders in online publishing - from founding Engadget to creating software used by global brands like AOL, Gucci, BusinessWeek, Netscape, Huffington Post, and more.You can find Brian on the following sites:BlogLinkedInXHere are some links provided by Brian:WordPress VIPPLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCASTSpotifyApple PodcastsYouTube MusicAmazon MusicRSS FeedYou can check out more episodes of Coffee and Open Source on https://www.coffeeandopensource.comCoffee and Open Source is hosted by Isaac Levin

“I don't know if any rational person ever became a billionaire running a disruptive company.” — Keith TeareIs capitalism by permission of democracy, or is democracy by permission of capitalism? That's the question Keith Teare and I have been circling for a while on our weekly tech roundup, and this week it triggered a full-blown discussion of our 21st century economic and political fate.Earlier this week, Vinod Khosla — one of Silicon Valley's most successful venture capitalists — posted on X that “capitalism is by permission of democracy.” Keith agrees. I'm not so sure. My sense is that as AI start-ups approach valuations that rival the GDP of nation states, the old equation inverts. Governments no longer permit capitalism. Capitalism permits government. The Sam Altmans and Elon Musks of the future, running 10 or $15 trillion dollar startups, won't lobby politicians. They'll replace them. Dario Amodei's confrontation with the US government, then, is a sneak preview of the future. Indeed, as what Om Malik calls a “symbolic capitalist”, Amodei is a good example of the type of engaged capitalist who will usurp traditional politicians. That's the good news. The bad news is that other examples of symbolic capitalists include Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Five Takeaways•       Keith Says OpenAI Will Be Worth $10 Trillion in Five Years: I told him I'd take him to dinner if he's right. He said I'd have to do more than that. His logic: NVIDIA promises $1 trillion in new revenue by the end of next year, Anthropic did $5 billion in new revenue in a single month, and the three expected IPOs — Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX — would together raise more money than the entire IPO market of the last decade. The Netscape moment, if it comes, won't be a moment. It'll be an earthquake.•       Fundrise Is the Canary in the Coal Mine: A fund holding private shares in Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX, Databricks, and Anduril went public this week at $34 and closed above $100. Retail investors paying three times net asset value for companies that aren't even public yet. Keith says that's not irrational — it's the market pricing the future. I'm less sure. History is littered with futures the market got catastrophically wrong.•       Om Malik Reframes the Entire Debate: His essay on “neo-symbolic capitalism” argues that value in the 21st century derives from symbols, narratives, and reputation rather than products. In that framing, Amodei's fight with the government isn't a miscalculation — it's brand-building. Musk is the master of it. Altman tries to wear every hat simultaneously. Peter Thiel is in Rome talking about the Antichrist. And the billionaires who signed the Giving Pledge now want out.•       Keith and I Disagree on What $10 Trillion Means: Keith says the government retains power regardless of corporate size. Being big doesn't give you political power unless governments are corrupt. I think that's naïve. If AI companies approach valuations that rival the GDP of nation states, the old equation inverts. Government doesn't permit capitalism. Capitalism permits government. The Amodeis and Musks of the future won't lobby politicians. They'll replace them.•       Contrarianism Is at the Very Core of Innovation: The one thing Keith and I agree on this week. Every billionaire is irrational. Musk is on the spectrum. Thiel believes in the Antichrist. Amodei thinks he can fight the US government and win. Keith concedes: no rational person ever became a billionaire running a disruptive company. The question is whether that irrationality is a feature of capitalism or a threat to democracy. We disagree on the answer. About the GuestKeith Teare is a serial entrepreneur, investor, and publisher of That Was The Week, a weekly newsletter on the tech economy. He is co-founder of SignalRank and a regular Saturday guest on Keen On America.References:•       That Was The Week — Keith's editorial on public markets and price outcomes.•       Om Malik on neo-symbolic capitalism — the essay that reframes the Amodei debate.•       Episode 2835: Why Dario Amodei Might Be the 21st Century's First Real Leader — last week's TWTW, where the Amodei debate began.•       Episode 2836: Is Elon Human? — Charles Steel on the curious mind of Elon Musk, referenced in the conversation.•       Fundrise (VCX) — the IPO that triggered this week's discussion, trading at 300% above NAV.About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters:(00:00) - Introduction: AI and unreason define the world (01:49) - Markets as prediction machines: NVIDIA's $1 trillion promise (04:42) - The three IPOs that would dwarf a decade of IPOs (05:50) - Fundrise (VCX): retail investors paying 300% premium (09:23) - Keith's prediction: OpenAI at $10 trillion in five years (11:44) - The Anthropic debate continues: tactics vs. morals (14:22) - Silicon Valley's behind-the-scenes support for Amodei (16:42) - What happens when an AI company rivals a nation's GDP? (23:05) - Om Malik on neo-symbolic capitalism (28:10) - Musk as the master of symbolic capitalism (30:08) - Bezos, Project Prometheus, and the Prometheuses of AI (32:07) - Peter Thiel, the Antichrist, and the Giving Pledge collapse (35:27) - Vinod Khosla: capitalism by permission of democracy? (38:23) - Or democracy by permission of capitalism?

Marc Andreessen joins David Senra for a conversation about entrepreneurship, history, and what drives some of the world's most ambitious builders. In this conversation with David, Marc reflects on patterns he's seen across great founders, why many of them focus relentlessly on building rather than introspection, and how technology and entrepreneurship continue to shape the future.   Resources: David Senra Website: https://www.davidsenra.com X: https://x.com/davidsenra Show notes: https://www.davidsenra.com/episode/ma... Marc Andreessen X: https://x.com/pmarca a16z: https://a16z.com/author/marc-andreessen Substack: https://pmarca.substack.com   Stay Updated:Find a16z on YouTube: YouTubeFind a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Derek Moore is joined by Mike Snyder and Shane Skinner to riff on volatility surging including VIX and VVIX. What volatility changes mean to market makers having to sell or buy more shares to hedge. Later, examine the largest 1 week surge in oil historically and where last week ranks. Plus, asking if OpenAI will wind up being the winner or more like Netscape. All this and more this week.   OpenAI vs other AI companies as the eventual winner Explaining what VVIX is in relation to the VIX Why changes in volatility cause market makers to have to sell or buy shares of underlying Energy sector was the contrarian pick hiding in plain site Green shoots that this selloff will end? The Fed and interest rates   Mentioned in this Episode   Derek Moore's book Broken Pie Chart https://amzn.to/3S8ADNT   Jay Pestrichelli's book Buy and Hedge https://amzn.to/3jQYgMt   Derek's book on public speaking Effortless Public Speaking https://amzn.to/3hL1Mag   Contact Derek derek.moore@zegainvestments.com

Who dares to make predictions in the current landscape? We do!  Our Predictions are back. Will our track-record continue on a high or will we be fundamentally wrong? Listen in to our Predictions for 2026 Navigation: Intro What will 2026 be all about? AI, AI and … more AI The big Hardware movements Of Start-ups and VCs Regulatory & Geopolitical Headwinds… and the Wars Fintech, Crypto and Frontier Tech Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show:   Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Schmitt Introduction Welcome to Tech Deciphered Episode 74. That would be an episode about some predictions about 2026. What will be 2026 all about? I guess this year is probably starting with a bang. We saw the acquisition of xAI by SpaceX. We saw an acquisition from Grok by NVIDIA. What’s your take about what would be the big themes in 2026? I guess it would be for sure about AI and space. Nuno Goncalves Pedro What will 2026 be all about? Yeah. I predict a year that will be a little bit more of a year of reckoning in some way. There will be a lot of things that I think we’ll start seeing through. The fact that we are in the midst of an amazing transformational era for technology, the use of AI, but at the same time, obviously, a ridiculous bubble that is going alongside it as we’ve discussed in previous episodes. I think that we’ll start seeing some early reckonings of that, companies that might start failing, floundering, maybe a couple of frauds along the way, etc. I’ll tell you what I will not make many predictions about today, which is geopolitics. Geopolitics, I will not make predictions at all. Who the hell knows what’s going to happen to the world this year in 2026? I don’t dare making any predictions on that. Back to things where I would make predictions. I think on AI, we’ll have a little bit of reckoning. We’ll talk about it a little bit more in detail during this episode. Interesting elements around the hardware and physical space. Physical space, we just dedicated a full episode to it. We won’t go into a lot of details on that, but definitely on the hardware side, we’ll talk a little bit more about it. The VC landscape is going through an incredible transformation. We’ll talk about it today as well and some of our predictions for this year. What will happen to the asset class? It seems to be transforming itself dramatically. Obviously, that has a very direct impact on startups, so we’ll talk about that as well. And then to close a little bit the chapter on this, we will address some regulatory and geopolitical, let’s call it, headwinds without making maybe too many complex predictions. We shall see. Maybe by that time of the episode, we will be making some predictions. You guys should stay and listen to us, and maybe we will actually make some predictions about the geopolitical transformations that we will see this year in the world. Then last but not the least, we’ll talk about fintech, crypto, frontier tech, and a couple of other areas before concluding the episode. A classic predictions’ episode. We normally have a pretty good track record on some of these, but right now, the world is going a bit interesting, not to say insane. Bertrand Schmitt Yes, and going back to some news, Groq technically was not acquired, but, practically, it’s as if it got acquired. I’m talking about Groq, G-R-O-Q. The AI semiconductor company focused on inference AI, and it was late December. It was a way to end the year. This year, we started again with an acquisition of xAI by its sister company, SpaceX. I guess that’s where we are starting. AI, AI and … more AI We are going to start on AI. That’s definitely the big stuff. Everything these days, I guess, is about AI or has to have some connection with AI, or it doesn’t matter. I think every company in the world has seen that. You have to have the absolute minimum on AI strategy. You better execute on this strategy and show results, I would say. For the companies that were not AI native, you truly have to have a way to transform yourself. I guess at some point, the stretch might be too much, and it’s not really reasonable. Then you maybe better stay on what you are doing, especially if you’re in tech, you better be moving faster to AI. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Just to highlight, and I think throughout the episode, you’ll see that there’re obviously a lot of implications that would manifest themselves into capital markets. I mean, we’ll specifically talk about VCs and startups later on. But the fact that everything needs to be AI, the fact that there’s so much innovation happening right now, in my opinion, and this is maybe the first pre-topic to AI, is we’ll see a tremendous increase in M&A activity this year across the board. I mean, we’ve seen already some big acquihires we mentioned in some of our previous episodes, but we’ll see a lot more activity on M&A this year. Normally, that’s a precursor to the opening of capital markets. I predict also that there will be a reopening of the IPO market that never really reopened last year, to be honest. M&A, a lot more, reopening of the IPO market. Normally, it happens in the second or third quarter of the year. That’s what my M&A friends tell me. First quarter of year, everyone’s figuring out stuff. Then last quarter of the year, things should be more or less closed. Maybe the third quarter is the big quarter. We shall see. But definitely, as a precursor to our conversation today, I think we’ll see a lot of M&A, and we’ll see reopening of the IPO mark. Bertrand Schmitt I guess last year was not as big as you could expect on M&A given the tariff situation announced in April and May. I mean, it became quite tough to do IPO in such market conditions. Definitely, we can hope for something dramatically different in 2026. I guess talking about public markets and IPO, I guess the big one everyone is waiting for is SpaceX. SpaceX getting even more interesting with its xAI acquisition. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Do you think that because of the acquisition, it’s more likely that it will happen this year, or because of the acquisition, it’s less likely that it will happen this year? Bertrand Schmitt That’s a good question. My guess is the acquisition of xAI is all about xAI needing more financing and cheaper financing. This acquisition is a pathway to that. SpaceX being a much bigger company, a company that is also making much more revenues. I could bet that there is higher probability that, actually, SpaceX will go public in order to finance itself. At the same time, will it have enough time to prepare itself for the IPO given this acquisition just happened? Can they do that in 6 months? I mean, if anyone can do it, I guess it’s Elon Musk. It’s a strategy to present an even more attractive company with an even more interesting story, a story of vertical integration from AI to space. I guess the story as it’s presented itself right now, it’s one about having your AI data centers in space. Because in space, you have much better solar energy production with solar panels. You have a perfect cooling situation because you are in space. Thanks to Starlink, you have the mean to communicate between the satellites and with Earth itself. I think if someone can pull up a story like AI data center in space, I guess Elon Musk can. There is, of course, a lot of questions about is it practical? Is it economical? Yes. I certainly agree. I’m not clear on the mass, and can you make it work? Again, I mean, Elon Musk single-handedly, with SpaceX, managed to transform the space market on its head. I mean, they are the biggest satellite launching company in the world. They have the most satellites in the world. I mean, I’m not sure I would bet against him, and I guess I would probably believe that he could pull up something. Time frames, different story. The 2-3 years data center in space for AI as cheap as on Earth, I have more trouble with that one. I mean, it’s a usual suspect with Elon Musk. You promise something unachievable in a few years, but, ultimately, you still manage to reach it in 5 or 10. Again, I would not bet against the strategy. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Yeah. I’ve talked to a couple of space experts, people that have launched rockets, and have worked JPL, NASA, and a couple of other places, etc. For what it’s worth, their feedback is, “No way in hell, and we’re decades away.” We’ll see. I mean, to your point, Elon has pulled very dramatic stuff. Not as fast as he normally says he’s going to pull it, but within a time span that we all see it. Difficult to bet against him. In terms of actually the prediction, maybe to respond to the prediction as well, will SpaceX IPO? I’m going to make a prediction that has a very high likelihood of missing the mark, but I think Tesla’s going to buy and merge them both into it. It’s going to become a public company through Tesla. That’s my hypothesis. Bertrand Schmitt No. That’s supposed to be it. That’s how you solve that. Nuno Goncalves Pedro And Elon controls the whole universe. X, xAI, Tesla, SpaceX, all under one umbrella beautifully run. And SolarCity is well in there, of course, so wonderful. Bertrand Schmitt That’s possible. Certainly, you are not the only one thinking Tesla will acquire or merge with SpaceX. To remind everyone, Tesla is around 1.3, 1.5 trillion market cap. Depending on the day, SpaceX seems to be valued at similar range, 1.2, 1.3 trillion. It looks like it’s the most valued private company at this stage. These are companies of similar size, so that’s one piece of the puzzle. When you think about the combined company, we could be talking about a 3 trillion entity. Playing right here with the biggest companies in the marketplace today. Nuno Goncalves Pedro With a couple of tweets from Elon, it will rapidly get to 4 to 5 trillion. Bertrand Schmitt That’s so tricky. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Yes. On AI and back to AI, one thing I think that we’re about to see is this will probably be the year of agentic AI. Obviously, we predict a lot of growth on that side of the fence, in particular on the enterprise B2B side. We see a lot of opportunities coming through. From our perspective, at least at Chamaeleon, we generally believe that there’s going to be a lot of movements on agentic AI. It’s also going to be probably the year of the first big fails of agentic AI that will be newsworthy. There will be some elements about that loop and how it gets closed that will happen. I think we might see some scandals already. We’re already seeing the social network of bots talking to bots. We will see other scandals going on this year even in the consumer space and in the bot to bot space, which we now can talk about or in the AI agent to AI agent space. My prediction is we will see some move forwards. There’ll be some dramatic funding rounds along the way. We’ll see a couple of really cool things out of the gates coming out that are really impressive, but we’ll also see the first big misses of the technology stack. I don’t think we’ll go fully mainstream yet this year, so it’s probably maybe something more for 2027 along the way. That would be my prediction again. I think enterprise will lead the way. We’ll definitely see a lot of stuff on consumer as well that is cool. Then we’ll all have our own personal assistance in our hands, basically, literally in our phones. Bertrand Schmitt Going back to agentic AI, we also started the year with some pretty dramatic move. I mean, the launch of Clawdbot, renamed OpenClaw. I mean, this stuff took fire in like a week or 2. It was coded by just one person who actually didn’t even code the product but used AI to build the product, 100% used AI, proposing some new ways also to leverage AI to do coding. He has a pretty unique approach. It’s not vibe coding. I would say it’s a better way to do that. Then the surprising evolution with the launch of a social network for AI agents, Moltbook. I mean, this stuff, probably there is some fake in it. But at the same time, I think it’s quite impressive because it’s the first time we see truly 100,000 plus agents communicating directly to each other. Yeah. I mean, that’s the first time we see surfacing the possibility of some sort of hive mind on the Internet. It’s pretty surprising. Right now, all of this is a hack done in a few days. By end of year, by 2 years, 3 years, we might discover that, actually, the best approach to AI might not be the AI assistant like we are doing today, but a combination of hundreds of thousands of AI working closely together. We might be witnessing the first sign of new intelligence in a way. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Things like this social network might either be Skynet, the beginning of Skynet. They might be the beginning of Her, or they might just be a fad and nothing really happens. It’s just interesting to see what these agents are doing. Bertrand Schmitt Totally. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Obviously, there are real and clear and present dangers of some of the integrations of AI we’re seeing in the market. Interesting enough, and I’ll ask you for your prediction a bit, Bertrand. I think we’ll probably see the first big mishap of AI being used in some infrastructural decision in the age of AI. I mean, we’ve seen AI issues in the past and software issues in the past. We talked in previous episodes about that as well. Mishaps of software that have led to people dying. But I think probably the first big mishap will happen this year as well. Very public mishap of the use of AI and serve its interactions with infrastructure or something that’s very platform related, etc, that will have big impact that everyone will notice. That’s my prediction for the year as well. We’ll have the first big oops moment, as I would call it, for AI in this new age of full on AI. Bertrand Schmitt I would say first some perspective. I think today, people are not using AI directly for life and death decision, at least not that I’m aware. We’re not going to let AI fly a plane, for instance, tomorrow so you can be, reassured. At the same time, given there is such a race to AI, there definitely might be some mistakes. We were talking about the social network for AI agents, Moltbook. Apparently, all the keys used to secure the AI were shared by mistake because it was not properly locked down. We can see that indirectly, mistakes will be made for sure. Two, it’s highly probable that some people will trust AI too much to do some stuff, and this stuff might not work and might have some grave consequence. Hopefully, there is not so much of this. Hopefully, it’s mostly AI used for the good. But you’re right. I mean, at some point, the more we use the technology, the more there would be issue. I mean, it’s highly probable. Nuno Goncalves Pedro That will lead me to another prediction, which is, and we’ll talk about more of it later, but it probably will lead to the first significant movement in terms of regulatory environment certainly in the US at some point if it happens in the US in particular, where there will be some movement that will be like, “Hey, you guys can’t do this anymore.” Because this will probably emerge from mismanaged interfaces. From systems having access to stuff that they shouldn’t have access to in the first place. Talking a little bit more about what’s happening in AI. You’ve already mentioned some of the issues that relate actually to security and cybersecurity. We keep talking about AI. We keep talking about all these infrastructure pieces and platforms that are being built. I think we’ll have a lot more incidents like the one you just mentioned where things will be shared that shouldn’t have been shared, where people will break systems and get into it, etc. Let’s see where that takes us, which is a little bit ironic because, obviously, with AI, the promise is that cybersecurity becomes more robust as well because there’re agents working on our behalf on the cybersecurity side. There’s also agents working on the other side. Bertrand Schmitt It’s a constant race. It’s the attackers, defenders. Each time you have new technology, you have a new race to who is going to attack or defend the best. Each new wave of technology, it’s an opportunity to challenge the status quo. Nuno Goncalves Pedro The attackers have been winning, and I feel they’ll continue winning in 2026. I think it’s going to still be a year of attack. We’ll see more and more breaches, more and more stuff that will happen. Bertrand Schmitt I don’t know if they will win. I mean, it’s normal that they win once in a while. For sure, some infrastructure is not updated as it should. Some stuff are not managed as it should, so there will always be breaches. I don’t know if things are dramatically going to change because, again, everyone who cares who is going to update his infrastructure with AI for defense. There is no question that you have no choice. We will see. That I don’t know. For sure, AI will be used to attack directly with AI. Maybe you’re able to do bigger, larger scale attack. Or thanks to AI, you are simply able to create new type of attacks more easily. AI can be used behind the scene as a way to prepare and organise new type of attacks, even if it’s not used directly live in the battle. Nuno Goncalves Pedro One topic that we’ll come back to later is the geopolitics of everything, but maybe more broadly. On the geopolitics of AI, it’s very clear that we have an arms race going on. Obviously, the US on the one hand, China on the other hand is the two extremes, putting tremendous amount of capital into data centers just at the base of that infrastructure. Chipset development, chipset access, a huge theme in terms of the export restrictions, etc, that are being forced by the US. I think it will continue. From a European standpoint, obviously, they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place, to be very honest. Let’s see what happens on that side of the fence. My view of the world is that certainly from a US and China perspective, we’re going to see a lot more movements in 2026, like big movements. The Chinese movements we always see in delay.  It takes us a couple of months, sometimes even more than that to understand exactly what’s going on. I think we’re going to see some huge moves this year in terms of the States, the United States of America, and China really pouring capital into the creation of the next big winners around AI. I think the US is obviously more visible. We see a lot of these companies. We’ve just discussed xAI and its acquisition by SpaceX or merger. I don’t know what they’re calling it exactly. Effectively, on the China side, the movements I think are already very big. As I said, it will take a while to figure out exactly what those moves are. One thing that I propose is that at some point, China will have very little dependency on chipsets from the US. I’m not sure it’s going to happen this year, but I think the writing is on the wall. Irrespective of any other geopolitical issues that is coming to the fore at this moment in time. That’s one of the key areas or in arenas of fight. Bertrand Schmitt It makes sense. If you are China, you will look at what happened. You would think that you cannot just depend on the largest of one country. It makes rational sense, the same way it makes rational sense for the US to limit exports to China because there is value to delay some peer pressure that could use these technologies for good but also for bad. If you were an ally of the US, that would be one thing. But when you are not an ally of the US, that certainly should be a different perspective. Maybe one last point concerning agents, I think there will be a lot that will revolve around coding. We can see OpenAI with Codex. We can see Cloud with code. There was, of course, [inaudible 00:18:28] that was trying to be big on agentic coding. I think agentic coding was one of the big transformation in 2025 and is going to get bigger in 2026. I think for a lot of people who do coding, there was a radical transformation in terms of what you can achieve, what you can do, how much you can trust AI to help you code. I start to think we might see this year, the replacement of not just one AI replace one coder, but one AI replace a full team because of the new ability to manage that at scale. Coding might be a common activity where you are going to think about outcomes, think about objective, think about how you organise, but not really coding by itself anymore. A big change, like you used to code, directly your hand on the stuff, but step by step, everyone is going to become a manager of agent. I think in one year, we saw enough transformation to think that in the coming year, the transformation can be even more dramatic. Nuno Goncalves Pedro The big Hardware movements Now switching gears to hardware. Obviously, a lot of movements in 2025 and over the last few years. One piece of thesis that we’ve had long-standing at Chamaeleon is that we will see the emergence of AI devices. Some of them have been tremendous failures as we discussed in the past. I predict that we’ll have a couple of really interesting full stack AI devices in the market this year. Why does that matter? Because, as many of you know, obviously, there’s compute that can happen in data centers and cloud infrastructure all over the world, but also there’s compute that can happen at the edges. The more you can move to the edges and the more you can create devices that actually allow you to have user experiences that are very distinctive at the edge, the more powerful some of these devices might become. I predict Apple will not be the first to launch anything on this. I predict probably OpenAI, after the acquisition of IO, will maybe not launch something this year, but will announce something this year. I’ll step back on that prediction. They’ll announce something this year, but maybe not launch. But we’ll start seeing some devices that have some interesting value in the market, probably devices that are AI devices, but they are very focused on very specific user flows, and so very much adequate to specific activities. I won’t make a prediction on that, but I think areas that would make sense for that to happen would be obviously around fitness, health, et cetera, et cetera, where we already have the ascendancy of products like Oura Ring and others out there. Definitely, that’s one area that might have quite a lot of developments. I think AI-first devices, devices that are very focused on compute at the edges, providing user flows that are AI-enabled to end users, we’ll see a lot more of that and a lot more activity this year. Again, I don’t think Apple will be necessarily ahead of the game. Again, maybe OpenAI will give us something to at least think about and look forward to. Bertrand Schmitt First, I’m not sure it will be that transformational because if it’s not in your phone, in your pocket, there is only so much you can do with it, and there is only so much computing power you will have. I’m doubtful it would be really impactful this year. Nuno Goncalves Pedro I feel we’ve been discussing this shift of paradigm in input and output. For me, some of these devices could lead to that shift. Because, again, a mobile phone is not a great long-term paradigm for the usage that we have because it’s really constrained by the screen. The screen is really what takes most of the battery life away. If we didn’t have that screen, what could we do? If we have the block that is as big as a mobile phone, and it didn’t have a screen, it was just compute, that’s a mini computer, a microcomputer. Bertrand Schmitt That’s a fair point, but I don’t see that transformation this year. That’s really more my point. I can see that you can have AI-enabled smart glasses, and it’s clear there is a race to AI-enabled smart glasses. My point is more to go beyond the gadget, it would take quite a while. It would need to have cameras. It would need to analyse what you see. It would need to hear what you hear. Again, it might come, but then at some point, it would be okay, what do you do with it? We have the example of the movie Her. That’s showing Her what it could be. There are definitely possibilities. It’s clear that if you take the big VR headset like the Apple Vision Pro, there is a failure from that perspective in the sense that I think it’s a great, amazing device. The big problem is that it’s doing way more that makes sense. I think there will be a clearer separation between your smart AR glasses that has to be light, that has to be always unconnected, and that’s primarily there to help you make sense of the world around you. The true VR headset that doesn’t really require much in terms of AI, and it’s just there to immerse you in a different world. For this, we know, unfortunately, in some ways, that there is not a lot of demand for it. Maybe there is little demand because you are too hidden in your own world. The technology is not working well enough yet. There are a lot of reasons. But I think Apple trying to do both at the same time, AR and VR, with the Vision Pro, was a pretty grave structural mistake. I think we would see a clearer line of separation between the two. There is bigger market opportunity for AR glasses. That, I certainly agree. There is opportunity to connect that to a computing device. As you talk about, your glasses are your screen, your phone becomes something in your pocket connected to your glasses. Nuno Goncalves Pedro For me, Apple has their way of doing things. From the perspective of what you said, they normally really plan their devices. Even if it’s a big shift in terms of a new area, like they tried with the Vision Pro, and we criticised them for launching it as a device that should have been more of a dev device that they really launched as a full-on device, but that’s their playbook, classically. I think Apple needs to change how they put products out and how they experiment with those products, et cetera. I think they have enough money to be doing everything all the time and figuring it out. If they don’t want to put it out, then they need to do a lot more hell of testing internally with their silos, but they should be playing across all these arenas, VR, AR, everything. They just should put devices out that are either ready for prime time, or they should call it something else. They should call it like this is a dev device or whatever it is. Bertrand Schmitt I agree with you. My complaint is more that it was marketed as a consumer device when it was not. It was a true developer device. Two, they tried to mix the two at once, and it made no sense. No one is going to walk in their home or in the street with their Vision Pro on their head. You have to be deranged, quite frankly, to have use cases like this. I think that for me is a crazy mistake from a company like Apple that prides itself in pure UI, pure user interface, very well-designed device for one specific use case, not mixing the two use cases. We still don’t have Macs with a touchscreen, you know?  We still don’t have an iPad with a good OS that makes use of this great hardware. For some strange reason, they decided to mix everything in the Vision Pro with a device that weighs a ton on your head and is so uncomfortable. That’s why, for me, I’m like, “Guys, what is wrong? Why did you let this team run crazy?” I hope at some point, Apple will go back to the drawing board. My understanding is that that’s what they are doing. They are going to have two devices, one smart glasses, an evolution of the Vision Pro, just focus on VR. They might actually abandon the concept of the pure VR-oriented headset. Because, from a market size perspective, it might not be big enough for Apple, quite frankly. Nuno Goncalves Pedro I read on all of the above, and people at this point was like, “Why are then players like Samsung and others not doing it. LG, et cetera?” Because those players historically have not invented new categories. They’re amazing at catching up once the category is invented, and then they scale the hell out of it, and that’s what these companies have been exceptional at. I wouldn’t see a dramatic innovation, I think, in terms of devices coming from any of the big ones on that side of the fence. Not to disrespect them in any way, but I think that’s not been their playbook ever. Again, if the origination doesn’t come from a start-up or from an Apple, I don’t see those guys going after it. My bet is that we’ll see some start-up activity and, again, hopefully, some announcement from IO now within the OpenAI world. Bertrand Schmitt I would slightly disagree with you. I see where you are coming from. But take the Samsung Galaxy Note, that sudden much bigger headphone that no one was doing that was launched by Samsung, at some point, it forced Apple to launch an iPhone Max. Let’s look at the Z Fold that Samsung launched 7 years ago, copied by everyone. Now Samsung launching a trifold. Apple has still not launched their foldable phone. I think there is a mix, actually, of sometimes- Nuno Goncalves Pedro For me, that’s not a proper new category. It’s still a mobile phone. It just happens to have a screen that folds in half. Bertrand Schmitt The iPhone was still a mobile phone, you could argue.  Nuno Goncalves Pedro No. I think the iPhone was…  I could actually agree with you on that point. Maybe Apple is not as innovative in that case. I think what Steve Jobs was exceptionally good at in terms of his ability as this master product manager was to be an exceptional curator of user flows and user experiences, and creating incredible experiences from devices based on that. That was his secret sauce. Could you say, “Wasn’t all of this stuff already around?” It was. You just put it all together very neatly and very nicely. But if you’re talking about significant shifts in how a category is done, the iPhone was a significant shift in how the category was done. The Fold is still an interesting device. I actually have a Fold right now in front of me. The 7 that you highly recommended to me that we both got, the Z Fold 7. I think they do amazing devices. I don’t think they normally are the most innovative players. Then, when they come to innovation, it comes from technology edges. Obviously, they have Samsung Display, there’s a bunch of other things. They had the ability to do foldable screens in-house themselves. Bertrand Schmitt I don’t disagree with you. I think there is an interesting situation where some companies have some strengths, another one has some strengths. My worry with Apple is that this was not demonstrated with the Vision Pro. The Vision Pro was a hot pot of technologies barely integrated together, with use cases absolutely not well-defined and certainly not something that makes sense for most of us. There is a question of has Apple lost it? While Samsung actually keeps doing their own stuff, that, yes, might be more minor improvements, but at least they are doing it. Because it looks like Apple is missing the train on even the minor improvements. By the way, you might not be aware, but Samsung launched its Vision Pro competitor. Interestingly enough, it might be a better product in some ways, being much lighter and much more comfortable. Nuno Goncalves Pedro We should play around with that and report back to our listeners. Of Start-ups and VCs Moving to venture capital and the startup ecosystem and what’s happening there, I think it is very much a bifurcated environment, and it’s bifurcated for both VCs and for startups. If you’re a startup in the AI space, and you have the hottest team since sliced bread, and you can create FOMO at the speed of light, you can raise ridiculous rounds. Five hundred million at the $3 billion, or $4 billion, or $5 billion valuation, and you still haven’t really even started. First round, you can raise 500 million. That’s back to the whole discussion on Bubble and where are we, et cetera. Some of these companies might actually become huge, some of them might not. But definitely, we are seeing really the haves and have-nots on the startup ecosystem with incredible teams raising a lot of money very, very early on or mid-stage if they’ve already existed for a while, and then the rest not being able to raise. We see a lot of non-necessarily AI sectors, some of the areas of SaaS that don’t necessarily have AI in it, or fintech, or the consumer space that are really, really struggling. If you don’t have an AI story for your startup right now, it’s extremely difficult to raise money unless your numbers are just the best numbers ever. That’s, I think, the first part of the element of bifurcation that we’re seeing today. The second element of bifurcation that we’re seeing today in terms of fundraising is for VCs themselves, and really propelled by the large VC firms raising more and more capital in recent orbits, announcing 15 billion across funds raised. Lightspeed, I think, had made an announcement a couple of weeks ago as well. They’ve raised a bunch of money as well. The big guys are all raising a lot of money. At some point in time, the question some of you might ask is, “These VCs are redeploying more and more money if they have a couple of billion for a VC fund. How does that look like? Is that still VC?” My perspective, I’ve shared before in some of our previous episodes, is that that’s no longer venture capital. At that point in time, we’re talking about something else. Private equity hedge funds, if you want to call them, maybe funds that are really driven by growth investment or late-stage investment. If you have a couple of billion under management, you’re not going to make your returns by writing a $3 million check in a series seed and leading that round.  That has implications for everyone in the ecosystem. It has implications for smaller funds that obviously have a lot more difficulty in raising capital. It’s difficult to differentiate. Last but not least, also for startups that really continue searching for that capital that is out there. Andreessen Horowitz, for example, runs Speedrun, which is a great program for companies around consumer in particular. Initially, it was a lot for gaming. But at some point in time, Andreessen Horowitz could decide that they don’t want to invest more in you. They just put money from Speedrun, which is obviously a very small check compared to the very large checks they could write mid to late stage and that will have an effect on you as a startup. What happens at that point in time if Andreessen Horowitz is not backing you up in later stages? More than that, what happens if I can’t get these big funds interested in me? Are the small funds still valuable to me? Punchline, my view is yes. Obviously, we’re a smaller fund, so there’s parochial interest in what I’m saying. Small funds can still create a ton of value for you, also in terms of credibility, ability to accompany you in those first stages of investment, and the ability to bring other larger investors later down the road as well. There’s definitely a big movement happening in terms of the fundraising for VC funds, which we shouldn’t neglect, which is the big guys are raising a lot more capital and are therefore emptying the market to smaller funds that are having more and more difficult raising at this point in time. We had discussed that there would be a need for concentration in the industry, that micro funds would need to concentrate, and we didn’t have the space for so many micro funds as we had around. But the way it’s happening is extremely dramatic at this moment in time. I think it will continue through 2026. Bertrand Schmitt Remember a few years ago, with the rise of AI, there was more and more of the question about, “What’s the point of SaaS at this stage?” Because SaaS was around for 15 years. Basically, how do you come up with something new that was not already tested, validated by the market? How do you bring something new? We say this was reinforced to the power of 10. If your product is not clearly built from the ground up for a new use case enabled by AI, anyone could then might have built your product 5, 10 years ago, and therefore, why now has no clear answer, and it’s a big problem. I’m still surprised myself to still see some entrepreneurs where you talk to them about AI because you don’t see them in the deck, and they explain to you, “It’s not yet there,” and you’re like, “What’s wrong with you guys?” Fine. Do whatever you want. Do a small business and whatever, but don’t think you can come up pitch and raise without an AI story. The second category is people who come with an AI story, but you can feel very quickly, I guess you saw that many times, Nuno, where just a story layered on top with little credibility. It’s not better. It’s not enough to just have a story. Your business needs to be radically built differently or radically proposing some brand-new use cases that were impossible to solve 5 years ago. Nuno Goncalves Pedro To stack up on that, absolutely in agreement. If you’re just adding to the story, and it’s an afterthought, and you’re just trying to make the story somehow gel, once you go into one or two layers of due diligence, your investors will very quickly realise that you’re not really AI-first or dramatically AI-enabled or whatever. It’s just you’re sort of stacking something on top of another thesis. It needs to make sense from the product onwards. It’s not just, let’s just put it together with chewing gum, and magically, people will give you money. It was true also if we remember the good old crypto blockchain days, where everyone’s investing in crypto. A lot of stories that didn’t make much sense. In that sense, it’s not very different. I would go one step further. I think in the world of the VC winter that we’re a little bit in, where it’s more and more difficult if you’re a smaller fund to raise your fund at this moment in time, there’s a lot of sources of distinctiveness still talked about, like proprietary networks, access to deal flow, fast track record, all that stuff that really, really matters. But our bet continues at Chamaeleon continues being that you need to be AI-first as a VC fund yourself. You need to have core advantages in using not only readily-available AI tools or third-party available AI tools, data sources, technology stacks, but actually building your own stack over time, which is what we did with Mantis at Chamaeleon. Again, just to reinforce that, I think we’re at the beginning of that stage. We, Chamaeleon, are ahead of the game, but we think that the rest of the market will have to move towards that as well. Still, to be honest, very surprising to me to see that many significant large players are doing very little still around some of these spaces. They have data scientists. They’re running some tools. They’re running some analysis and all that stuff, but it’s still, again, back to the point I was making for startups, all glued up with chewing gum. It doesn’t all come together nicely, which it does need to from a platform standpoint. Bertrand Schmitt It’s quite surprising. I agree with you that some VC funds might think that they can do business as usual in that brand-new world. It’s difficult to believe. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Maybe moving a little bit toward the capital formation piece. We already discussed the M&A space really accelerating. We’ve also discussed the IPO market and some predictions on that. Secondaries, there’s obviously a lot of liquidity coming from secondaries from mid to late stage. I think it will continue throughout the rest of 2026. A lot of activity in buying, selling in secondaries as some asset managers are becoming more distressed, as some very high net worth individuals and family offices are becoming more distressed as well, at the same time, where there’s a lot of opportunities to potentially arbitrage around some investments. I believe a lot of money will be made and lost this year by decisions made this year, just to be very, very clear in terms of equity, purchases, et cetera. Exciting year ahead of us. Definitely a very, very interesting market ahead of us. Secondaries, M&A, growth, and late-stage investing, also, early-stage investing will continue just for those that were wondering. Last but not least, the public markets, the IPO market as well. Bertrand Schmitt One of the big questions for the IPO market would be, will SpaceX go public? Would it be good for the startup ecosystem? Because suddenly that they go public, it would be to raise money. If they raise money, will there be any money left for anybody else? That would be an interesting test of the market. For sure, it would be proof that market are risk on financing a new IPO like this one. Or as you said, maybe there is no IPO, and it’s a merger with Tesla. Time will tell. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Regulatory & Geopolitical Headwinds… and the Wars Moving maybe to our topic of regulation and geopolitical headwinds, as we’re seeing … definitely not tailwinds. The Google antitrust verdict and, obviously, the remedies are expected to come forward now, and a lot of people are saying, “There are some risks of structural separation.” What do you think? Is it cool, but nothing will happen in the end dramatically? Alphabet or Google? I’m not sure, actually. It’s Google LLC. I think that’s the case. It’s The United States versus Google LLC. Bertrand Schmitt I’m not sure. Personally, I’m not a big fan. I think there needs to be a better way to manage some anticompetitive behavior. I’m not a big fan. There was this temptation to do that for Microsoft 25 years ago. Look at what happened. No one needed to buy Microsoft to leave space for others. I see the same with Google, and I guess they are happy to not be the number 1 in AI today, but to have an open AI in front of them. Even if they are doing a great job, by the way, to move forward and go faster and faster. Personally, quite impressed now with some of what they have released. Gemini 3 is doing great from my perspective. I’m not a big fan of this. I think to be clear, it’s important that bigger companies don’t behave anticompetitively, but at the same time, we need to find the right approach where it’s not about breaking these companies, and it’s also not about forbidding them to do acquisitions. Because then you end up with what NVIDIA just did with a $20 billion acquihire IP licensing type of acquisition, because they didn’t want to have the uncertainties. They didn’t want to wait 1–2 years in order to acquire the people and the technology, so they organised it in a different way. But I don’t like that. I think they should be able to acquire companies without facing so much uncertainty. To be clear, it’s not new. Uncertainty when you are Google, NVIDIA, or others, it happens. It has happened for a decade plus, 2 decades. I think there needs to be, for sure, some safety valves. At the same time, we want an efficient capital market. An efficient capital market need companies that can acquire other companies. If you don’t do that efficiently, it will be worse for the entrepreneurs, it will be worse for the investors, it will be worse for everybody. I think we have not reached a good equilibrium from my perspective. We need more efficient acquisition process. And at the same time, we need to also enforce faster anticompetitive behavior. Because what you talk about concerning Google, this is a case that was what? That is 10 years old. You see what I mean? This is way too long. If you’re a startup, you are dead by then. It’s like the story of Netscape facing Microsoft. They were dead long after the fact. I think we need a different approach. I’m not sure the best answer. I’m not sure we’ll get a better approach. There are probably too many vested interest. My hope is that it will get better with this current administration because, certainly, the past administration was very anti acquisition and efficient markets. Nuno Goncalves Pedro We’ve talked about the European Union AI Act a bunch of times, so I don’t want to spend too many cycles on that. The only effect that I would say is we are seeing in very slow motion the splitting of the Internet. I once had Tim Berners-Lee, by the way, shouting at me that we were going to break the Internet when we were applying for the .mobi top-level domain. I was part of that consortium that eventually did get the .mobi top-level domain, and I had him shouting at us. But, apparently, this is going to split the Internet, Tim. So in case you’re listening. Because it will create all these different rules. If your data is relating to consumers there, then it’s treated in a different way, and The US is… Well, obviously, we have the case of California with its own rules and laws. I don’t know. I feel we’re having a moment of siloing that goes beyond economic and geopolitical siloing. It will also apply to the digital world, and we’ll start having different landscapes around it. We’ll see how this affects global expansion of services, for example, around AI, particularly for consumer, but I don’t foresee anything dramatically positive. Recently, we had the whole deal around TikTok finally having a solution for their US problem where there’s now a US conglomerate magically that owns it. The conglomerate doesn’t magically own it, they just straight up own it for the US. But it was driven by many of these concerns around data ownership. Where’s the data? Where is it based? I think a lot of other concerns that have to do with the geopolitics of China, obviously, being the basis of ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, that still is a significant owner, by the way, in TikTok in US. Then also the interest in the economics of making money out of something as powerful as TikTok, to be honest, in The US. Just to be clear, I don’t think this was all about the best interests of consumers. It was also about money. Just follow the money. Bertrand Schmitt There are for sure, some powerful interest at play. But let’s be clear. I think one is data, as you rightfully said, but the other one is algorithm. It’s not as if China is authorising any competitor on its territory. They have blocked access to most of the Internet platforms from the US, either finding new rules or just trade blocking them. So I don’t think it’s fair competition. You don’t want some of that data in China about the US or European consumer. Three, it’s about the algorithm. If suddenly, you are a foreign power, and you can as we know in China, you better follow what’s required of you from the Chinese Communist Party. You cannot take a chance with influencing other stuff like elections in other countries. It’s fair from the US perspective. One could even argue it’s fair from a Chinese perspective to want that. I think the only one in the middle who doesn’t really know what they want is Europe because on one side, they want to benefit from American platforms, on the other end, they want to have some controls. On the other end, they don’t create the environment for startups to flourish. So in that weird situation where they have to accept some control by the big US providers and either provider of underlying infrastructure or provider of consumer business facing services. Then they try to regulate them. But I think they are misunderstanding the power relationship, and I think some of this regulation would get some blowback, at least by the current administration. Just, I believe, this morning, there was some news around X being under a criminal investigation in France. This is not going to end well for the French startup and VC ecosystem. This is not going to end well for France and Europe when you depend so much from your American friends. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Regulation will be weaponised. Regulation constraints around exports, all of this will be weaponised geopolitically, and the bigger guys will normally win. I think that’s normally what we’ve seen. Just on TikTok just to… And you guys, if you’re listening to us, just see if you see a pattern here, but obviously, 19.9% still owned by ByteDance of the TikTok entity in the US. It was initially said that 80% of the TikTok entity is owned by non-Chinese investors. Initially, people were saying US investors, and then they changed it to non-Chinese because MGX, I think, has 15% of it. MGX is based in the UAE, connected obviously to Mubadala, the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund. Silver Lake is in there, I think, with 15% as well. Oracle as well with 15%. Those three are the big bucket owners together, 45%. Silver Lake having collaborated with MGX before, and I’m sure a lot of connectivity there. Then you still see a pattern in this in terms of shareholders. If you don’t, then just Google it. Dell Family Office, Vastmir Strategic Investments, which is owned by billionaire Jeff Yass, Alpha Wave Partners, obviously involved with a bunch of things like SpaceX and Klarna, Virgoli, Revolution, which is Steve Case’s, a former founder of AOL, is also in there. Meritway, which is managed by partners, I think, of Dragonair. Vinova from General Atlantic, an affiliate of General Atlantic. Also, NJJ Capital, which I believe is Xavier Nil, the French billionaire that founded Iliad. Mostly American, I think, if the math is correct. 80% non-Chinese, which was what mattered, I think, in many cases. But do see if you saw a pattern in most of those investors. I won’t say anything more than that. Maybe moving to other topics, maybe just to finalise on regulation and geopolitics. In geopolitics, we should talk about wars if we predict anything. Not that we are nasty and one want to be negative, but what the hell is going on? Will we have ending to the wars we already have ongoing or not? But before that, the struggles on the App Stores, I think, will continue both for Apple and for Google Play Store. The writing’s on the wall, the EU keeps pushing it dramatically and Apple keeps just doing stuff. I’m on the board of an App Store company. Apple just creates all these things that basically make you not really… It doesn’t work. You can’t provision then an App Store on Apple devices. On iPhones, et cetera. We’ll see how that will continue going, but I feel the writing’s on the wall. Both Apple and Google will have to open up a bit more of their platforms. I’m not sure it will have a huge impact in the medium to long term, but definitely we need to see more openness in access to apps as given by the two big platform owners, Apple and Google, out there. Bertrand Schmitt Let’s be clear. Google is way more open than Apple. We both have Android devices. You can install alternative app stores. It’s a different ballgame by very far. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Google does other nasty stuff. It’s public. You can check which board I’m a part of. You can see what that company has done towards Google over time. But to your point, yes. It is true that Google has been more open than Apple, but Google has done their own things. Just to be very clear, so I’ll just leave that caveat bracketed there for people to think about it and maybe read a little bit about it as well. Bertrand Schmitt I can say that, me, from my perspective, that path of total control that Apple has been going through on all their devices, that includes macOS, pushed me to, over the past 2, 3 years, to completely live and abandon the Apple ecosystem. I just couldn’t accept that level of control, that golden handcuff approach of the Apple ecosystem, each their own obviously, they are golden, their handcuffs, but they are still handcuffs. Personally, that pushed me way more to Linux, Android, Windows, back to Windows after all these years. I just couldn’t stand it anymore. I want to pick my devices. I want to pick what I install on them, and I don’t want to be controlled like this by just one entity for all my tech devices. For me, at some point, it was just not acceptable anymore. It’s still very warm, very golden handcuffs, but for me, they were just handcuffs at this stage. Yes, what they are doing with the App Store is very typical of that mindset. I think it’s quite sad because I think it started with good intention in some ways. “We need a new computing paradigm, we need to make things smoother and safer,” but it has really become a way to control your clients. For me, it has reached a point where it’s just way too much. Nuno Goncalves Pedro There’s obviously the great power comes great responsibility that uncle Ben told Spider-Man or Peter Parker. But there’s also with great power comes shitload of money, and control. So it’s like, “Yeah. Should we open the server? Do we want to delay opening it up?” “Yeah.” Anyway, it is what it is. Maybe let’s end on the more difficult note of the episode, which is going to be around wars. What’s our prediction? Will we have an end to the Gaza situation with Israel? Will we have an end to Ukraine and, obviously, Russia? What will happen in Iran? Those are the three big, big conflicts right now. Then, obviously, if we want to add just bonus points, what’s going to happen to Greenland, and what’s going to happen to Taiwan, and what’s going to happen to Venezuela? Let’s throw the whole basket in there. We’ve never had like… Let’s talk about all these territories and all these countries. At some point in time, I’m saying this in a light manner, but it’s obviously more tragic than it should be light, and people are dying, and there’s a lot of implications of all of that that is happening right now. Do you have any predictions, Bertrand, for this year? Bertrand Schmitt No. It’s tough to predict on an individual basis. I think on a more bigger picture basis is on one side, obviously, the rise of China on one side. You have also the rise of other countries like India, while very indirectly connected to some of these conflicts are still part of the game, buying oil from Russia, for instance. At the same time, I think overall, the US is more clear about with the sheriff in town. I think it’s good because in some ways, you cannot pay for the goods, you cannot have such a massive advantage versus nearly every other country on earth and just not be clear about who is the boss in some ways. As a result, what are the rules of the game and how it should be played? The US is not alone, obviously, you have China, you have Russia, you have India, you have Europe. You have different other countries. But at some point, it’s not good when countries are not rational and are not clear. I think I prefer the current situation where things are more clear and where you have to assume responsibilities about what you are doing. It’s time to be rational again about how the world behave. Yes, the concept of power and balance of power. I think there has been that dream, maybe mostly coming from Europe, about the end of history. I think that’s simply not the case. It’s not the end of history. It’s still about the balance of power. It has always been about the balance of power. If you are dumb enough to think it was not about that anymore, I just have a bridge to nowhere to sell you. I don’t have specific prediction, but I think it’s clear there is a new sheriff in town. There is a new doctrine about the Western Hemisphere that has been in some ways resurrected on the [inaudible 00:51:35] train, and I think we’ll see more of it. I think at this point, the biggest question is for the Europeans. What do they want to do? Because right now, their position of being a dwarf militarily while being a pretty big giant economically, I don’t think it works. Nuno Goncalves Pedro I agreed on everything that you said. I do have predictions. I’ll stick a flag on the ground just with my predictions. Bertrand Schmitt Good luck. Nuno Goncalves Pedro They are mostly positive. I do think we’ll see an end or, for the most, end to the two big conflicts, the one in Gaza and the one in Ukraine. I think Ukraine will end up in readjustment of territory and splitting between Russia and the Ukraine, but the end of hostilities, I think that we will see an end to the conflict in Gaza also with a readjustment on what that will mean for the Palestinian territories and the Palestinians in general. That I’m not sure, but I feel that there will be an end to those two big conflicts. Iran, I have no clue. I will not put a stick on the ground that I have no clue. There are so many things that could go wrong there. I’ve been reading some really interesting thoughts about even some aggressive thoughts that this might be the time to really change regimes in Iran and for the US to have a bit more of an aggressive stance. I really don’t have a perspective. Obviously, there’s a lot at stake there. Then, if we talk about the other parts, Greenland, I will not opine too much on. Maybe we’re done for now. Maybe there’ll be some other concessions to the US that weren’t already there in the ’50s. Taiwan, I won’t bet either. I’m sad to say I think it might happen at some point in time, but I’m not sure when and what would drive it. Last but not the least, Venezuela is my only really negative prediction. I feel it will continue to be a significant dictatorship as it was before managed enough by other people with the difference now that it has a tax to be paid to the US in the form of oil of some sort, etcetera, and maybe gas, maybe other things as well that it didn’t have before. That’s probably my most negative prediction for the coming year on the geopolitical side. Bertrand Schmitt Without going into detail, I would mostly agree with what you shared. At least that makes sense. But as we know, it’s not always what makes sense, but what might happen. I can tell you 100% I would not have guessed this operation against Maduro. This was so well done, well executed, and shocking at the same time that it’s… I think it shows that it’s hard to guess some of this stuff because there are certainly some new ways to wage limited war, for instance. So it’s certainly interesting, and we certainly need to get used to pretty bombastic statements. But for Venezuela, I don’t think it can be worse than what it was before. I’m probably more optimistic that gradually it can get better. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Just to put perspective on why we’re not making predictions on some of these elements, I think this is a funny story, but I was in Madeira. Actually, first time I was in Madeira, although I’m originally from Portugal. I’ve never been to the islands. Obviously, as you guys know, or some of you might know, there’s a lot of connection between Madeira and Venezuela. There’s a lot of immigration from Madeira Islands to Venezuela. One of my Uber or Bolt drivers there in Madeira was Venezuelan. Was born in Venezuela, but Portuguese descent, et cetera. He was telling me this was still last year. Late last year. Because I told him I lived in US, et cetera, and he was like, “Oh, hopefully, Trump will get Maduro out of there.” In my mind, I was like, “Dude.” No disrespect to the gentleman, but it’s like, “Okay. Mike, your perspective on geopolitics is maybe a little bit exaggerated.” And a couple of days later, we know what happened. When geopolitical decisions are better predicted by some probably very astute Uber drivers, you’re like, “Maybe I shouldn’t make a bet. I have no clue what’s going to happen, no clue what’s going to happen in Greenland, et cetera.” Anyway, a couple of predictions on that element. Bertrand Schmitt That’s why it’s so right. You have to be careful with the prediction, but it doesn’t remove the fact that I think nations and companies that have to play a global game have to understand in some ways what is the game, what are the powers in place, what could happen potentially, but also be realistic. Not be about wish and dreams, but more about, what’s the power relationship? Who has the money? Who has the means? Who has the capacity to do this or that? Because if you start that way, at least the scope of what’s possible, what’s reasonable is more and more clear more quickly. Some stuff like happened with Maduro, I would never have predicted, but for sure, if there’s one country that can do this sort of stuff, it’s the US. I’m not sure anyone has a technology and the means in terms of support infrastructure to do something like this. It’s tough to predict what will happen a year from now for any specific country, but I think that even trying to get a better understanding about the forces in play and their capacity and understanding and accepting that at some point, it’s all about real politic and relationship of power, the more your eyes would be wide open about what’s possible versus simple, wishful thinking. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Fintech, Crypto and Frontier Tech Moving maybe to our last section around fintech, crypto, and frontier tech. For me, just two very quick predictions, views of the world. I think on the frontier tech side, I won’t make a prediction. I will just tell you all to go and listen to our episodes, the one on infrastructure, which is immediately prior to this one, and the episodes that we’ve had around a couple of other topics including AI, what’s the future of your children, because I think they illustrate a lot of the points that we’re seeing and manifesting themselves over the next year and over the next 2 or 3 years as well beyond that. I feel those tomes are complete in and out of themselves, so you can just go and listen to them. Then my second comment is on crypto. I feel crypto has become of the essence, particularly under the current administration in the US, very favored. Obviously, we are now in a world where crypto is just part of the economic system, and I think we’ll see more and more of that emerging, and in some ways, crypto is becoming mainstream. Question is what blockchains will be the blockchains of the future? Obviously, there’s a bunch of bets put out there. We, ourselves, as Chamaeleon, have one investment in one of the significant bets in the space. But besides that, who’s going to win or not, we feel that we’re past the crypto winter. It’s now mainstream days, and we’ll see a lot more activity in there. Bertrand Schmitt I must say with crypto, I’m a bit confused. As you say, we are past the crypto winter. There is much less uncertainty in regul

Eric Byunn of Centana Growth joins Nick to discuss The Future of Fintech, If VC Growth Has Become a New Asset Class, and the Case For and Against Vertical Integration in the AI Age. In this episode we cover: Due Diligence and Value Creation Investment in Jumio and Identity Verification Growth Expectations and Market Realities Lessons from Netscape and Industry Evolution Investor Responsiveness and Connectivity Guest Links: Eric's LinkedIn Centana Growth Partners' LinkedIn Centana Growth Partners' Website The host of The Full Ratchet is Nick Moran of New Stack Ventures, a venture capital firm committed to investing in founders outside of the Bay Area. We're proud to partner with Ramp, the modern finance automation platform. Book a demo and get $150—no strings attached.   Want to keep up to date with The Full Ratchet? Follow us on social. You can learn more about New Stack Ventures by visiting our LinkedIn and Twitter.

Summary: In this episode of PRess Play: The StreetCred Podcast, hosts Elena Krasnow and Jimmy Moock sit down with Shannon Spotswood, chief executive officer of RFG Advisory. Shannon takes us on an incredible ride, from her early fascination with Wall Street at age 14 to the pivotal career and life decisions that ultimately led her to the helm of RFG Advisory. She reflects on learning to get comfortable being uncomfortable, her dynamic experiences across hedge funds and investment banks and the decision to step away from finance entirely before embarking on building the RIA of the future in Birmingham, Alabama.  We cover: How Shannon became so passionate about supported-independence for advisors Shannon's early formative experience working for a woman-led hedge fund Her move to Birmingham, Alabama and how that led to her favorite chapter of her career  What makes Shannon tick and why she loves building from the ground up The importance of building a brand that is deeply tied to people's values  …and much more! Don't miss this captivating conversation which reveals how each of these chapters shaped Shannon's leadership philosophy and her belief in building firms rooted in purpose, positivity and growth. Topics: (0:36) Meet Shannon Spotswood (1:33) What's for lunch? (1:45) The most perfect homemade granola  (2:28) A creature of habit  (2:59) You had me at hot honey (3:30) Saving her spirit of innovation for the business realm  (5:42) How Shannon entered the industry (6:10) At age 14, she knew she wanted to be on Wall Street  (8:25) The move to San Francisco to work at a hedge fund under one of the few female-led portfolio managers  (9:00) Learning how to trade IPOs and model companies  (9:40) The anti-Wallstreet Investment Bank, taking Netscape public  (10:50) Dream job came knocking in her second hedge fund job  (11:52) Learning how to get comfortable being uncomfortable (13:00) Hitting the wall and needing a change  (14:00) Pivot into luxury children's clothing  (14:45) Moving back to Birmingham, Alabama  (15:40) What Shannon loves about building RFG (16:00) Whoever would have thought the RIA of the future would be born and built in Birmingham, Alabama (17:05) The thread that knit it all together  (17:51) What makes her tick?  (18:44) Seeking the intangible  (19:49) “I am either all in or I'm out” (20:11) What it was like when Netscape went public   (22:15) “Everyone on your team has to be a driver”  (25:25) The importance of building a brand that people can connect with  (25:50) What clients are looking for in their advisors  (28:50) The biggest opportunities for advisors who want to grow in today's environment (29:00) “Stop undervaluing your time”  (29:55) Michael Kitces map  (30:42) The financial advisor's superpower  (33:00) Lessons for those looking to find their voice and carve out their own path (34:00) Get over the imposter syndrome  (36:00) Having a disproportionately positive impact on the industry, her partners and the world  (38:10) The detriment behind procrastination  (39:40) Mindset has a 24 hour shot clock on it (40:45) The power of momentum  (41:58) Time for our Play segment! (42:35) Shannon would have run a commercial construction company  (43:20) “I love any -ing”  (44:16) Moment of gratitude   Connect with StreetCred PR:   Contact Us: https://streetcredpr.com/contact/  StreetCred PR Website: https://streetcredpr.com/  Elena Krasnow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/elena-krasnow/  Jimmy Moock on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimmy-moock-3103162/  StreetCred PR on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/streetcred-publicrelations/  Subscribe to PRess Play on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@StreetCredPR    Connect with Shannon Spotswood:   RFG Advisory: https://rfgadvisory.com/  Shannon Spotswood on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonspotswood/    About our Guest:  Shannon Spotswood is a 25-year veteran of the financial services industry with experience spanning investment banking, hedge fund management, professional management and business development. As CEO of RFG Advisory, she leads RFG 2.0, the firm's fully integrated platform for independent advisors, and drives the strategic initiatives that power advisor growth. Since joining RFG in 2015, Shannon has blended her entrepreneurial background with a passion for building an innovative, advisor-focused RIA of the future—helping grow the firm from $1.2 billion to more than $7 billion in AUM. Publishing Tags: PRess Play, StreetCred PR, Podcast, Financial Journalism, Financial Media, Elena Krasnow, Jimmy Moock, Wealth Management, RIA, RIA of the Future, Supported Independence, Financial Advisors, Women in Leadership, Shannon Spotswood, RFG Advisory  

Everyone keeps comparing the AI boom to the dot-com era — so we decided to go down the rabbit hole and see what really happened.In this episode, Jess and I take you back to the 1990s — when optimism was sky-high, money was cheap, and anything with “.com” in its name could send Wall Street into a frenzy. We unpack the perfect economic storm that built the bubble, the wild timeline of events that burst it, and the investor psychology that made even the smartest people believe this time was different.Because before you can understand today's market manias… you've got to understand the first one.Key Takeaways:The 1990s were the perfect setup for a bubble: Low inflation, low interest rates, and a booming economy gave investors confidence — and cheap money — to chase risk. The Internet added excitement, fueling the belief that a “new economy” had begun.Technology changed everything — and everyone wanted in: The commercialization of the Web and the rise of companies like Netscape, Amazon, and Yahoo! made it feel like endless growth was guaranteed. IPOs exploded, valuations skyrocketed, and profits stopped mattering.Investor psychology took over the market: FOMO and hype replaced fundamentals. The phrase “irrational exuberance” wasn't just clever — it described the collective mindset that pushed prices higher simply because they were already rising.The media amplified the mania: Financial news networks turned investing into entertainment. Analysts became influencers before social media existed, and market updates sounded more like sports commentary than financial analysis.The bubble wasn't just about tech — it was about people: It was a story of optimism, greed, and belief. Investors convinced themselves “this time is different,” proving that markets run on emotion just as much as data.______________________________________________________________Ask Us a Question, Leave a Review, Follow, Subscribe:

ลองจินตนาการภาพตามว่า วันนี้คือวันที่ 27 สิงหาคม 1998 ภายในห้องสอบสวนที่สำนักงานใหญ่ของ Microsoft ชายที่ร่ำรวยที่สุดในอเมริกาและผู้ทรงอิทธิพลที่สุดในโลกเทคโนโลยีอย่าง Bill Gates กำลังนั่งอยู่ฝั่งตรงข้ามของโต๊ะสอบสวน บรรยากาศในห้องนั้นเต็มไปด้วยความตึงเครียด สีหน้าของเขาดูอึดอัดอย่างเห็นได้ชัดตลอดช่วงเวลาหลายชั่วโมงที่ถูกตั้งคำถามอย่างหนักหน่วง นี่คือการให้การเป็นพยานนอกศาล หรือที่เรียกในภาษาอังกฤษว่า Deposition ซึ่งเป็นกระบวนการซักถามพยานภายใต้คำสาบานก่อนการเข้าสู่กระบวนการพิจารณาคดีในศาลจริง ทนายความฝั่งรัฐบาลสหรัฐฯ ยิงคำถามอย่างไม่ลดละ และภาพลักษณ์อัจฉริยะผู้เป็นที่รักของชาวอเมริกันก็เริ่มพังทลายลงตรงนั้น จากวิดีโอบันทึกภาพกว่า 20 ชั่วโมงของการสอบสวน Bill Gates มีท่าทีหลบเลี่ยง กอดอก โยกตัวไปมา ดื่มน้ำบ่อยครั้ง และเอาแต่เถียงเรื่องความหมายของคำศัพท์ง่ายๆ อย่างคำว่า “แข่งขัน” หรือคำว่า “พวกเรา” เขาพยายามประวิงเวลาถึงขั้นเถียงกับความหมายในพจนานุกรมคอมพิวเตอร์ของบริษัทตัวเอง ยิ่งไปกว่านั้นเขายังตอบว่า “I don't recall” หรือ “ผมจำไม่ได้” ซ้ำแล้วซ้ำเล่าจนแม้แต่ผู้พิพากษาที่ได้ดูวิดีโอนี้ในภายหลังยังต้องหัวเราะออกมาด้วยความระอา เกิดอะไรขึ้นกับชายผู้พลิกโฉมโลกเทคโนโลยี ทำไมเขาถึงต้องมาตกอยู่ในสถานการณ์นี้ เรื่องราวของวิสัยทัศน์ทางธุรกิจ กลยุทธ์อันเหี้ยมโหด ไปจนถึงข่าวฉาวระดับโลกที่กลายมาเป็นจุดพลิกผันแบบที่ไม่มีใครคาดคิด เลือกฟังกันได้เลยนะครับ อย่าลืมกด Follow ติดตาม PodCast ช่อง Geek Forever's Podcast ของผมกันด้วยนะครับ =========================  สนับสนุนโดย ========================= 

In the 1990s, Microsoft and Netscape fought for control of the browser, the gateway between humans and the internet. Netscape went from 90% market share to zero in five years. Now, with over 30 agentic browsers launching in under 18 months, the same war is playing out again, only this time the stakes are higher. This episode breaks down the 90s browser wars, compares the tactics to what's happening today, and explains what website owners should do about it.Key takeawaysThe playbook hasn't changed - Bundling, free products, proprietary lock-in, and distribution deals decided the 90s browser wars. The same tactics are playing out with agentic browsers today.Google is running Microsoft's 1995 playbook - Microsoft embedded IE into Windows to protect its OS monopoly. Google is embedding Gemini into Chrome to protect its search monopoly. The browser is the defensive weapon, not the product.The Chromium trap is deeper than IE bundling ever was - Most agentic browsers (Comet, Atlas, Neon) run on Google's Chromium engine. Even competitors are built on Google's foundation.The prize shifted from attention to transactions - The 90s fight was about what people see. The agentic browser fight is about what AI agents buy, book, and do on your behalf.Your website is the new Netscape - If AI agents mediate every user interaction, your site risks becoming invisible infrastructure rather than a destination.Regulation will be too late - The DOJ took 6 years to settle with Microsoft. Netscape was already dead. The same timeline is playing out with Google's antitrust case.What to do todayDon't optimize for one agentic browser. Build for web standards: semantic HTML, ARIA labels, structured data, server-side rendering.Build direct audience relationships (email, communities, subscriptions) so you're not dependent on browser intermediaries.Make your site worth visiting, not just worth scraping. Offer value an AI agent can't replicate.Treat accessibility as an agent strategy. Screen reader compatibility = AI agent compatibility.Test your site with an agentic browser to see what works and what breaks.Read the full agentic browser landscape breakdown: nohackspod.com/blog/agentic-browser-landscape-2026Chapters00:00 - Introduction01:34 - The First Browser War09:15 - The Agentic Browser Explosion12:48 - Why Is This Happening Now?16:15 - Where the 2026 Version Gets Worse21:27 - What This Means for Your Website23:14 - What to Do About It26:49 - ClosingConnectWebsite: https://nohackspod.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/slobodanmanic/Newsletter: https://nohackspod.com/subscribeNo Hacks is a podcast about web performance, technical SEO, and the agentic web. Hosted by Slobodan "Sani" Manic.

The AI labs fighting for attention during the Super Bowl call to mind another iconic Super Bowl moment: Apple's 1984 ad for the Macintosh, which promised that the personal computer would be a source of unbound wonder, freedom, and delight.They were right, but over time, the personal computer has also become cluttered with errands.These “computer errands”—downloading a W-2 when tax season rolls around, hunting for the right coupon code before checkout, or navigating the unholy labyrinth of the Amazon Web Services dashboard just to change one permission setting—have taken over our digital lives. Atlas, OpenAI's agentic browser, sprang from the idea that AI should handle this tedium for you.In this week's episode of AI & I, Dan Shipper sat down with two members of the Atlas team, Ben Goodger and Darin Fisher. Goodger is Atlas's head of engineering, and Fisher is a member of the technical staff. Both are legends of the browser world. They've spent decades building the modern web, working together on Netscape, Firefox, and Chrome before arriving at Atlas. From that vantage point, they told Dan how they think browsing is about to change, why building a browser is harder than it looks, and what it's like to create a new one with AI coding tools like Codex.If you found this episode interesting, please like, subscribe, comment, and share! Want even more?Sign up for Every to unlock our ultimate guide to prompting ChatGPT here: https://every.ck.page/ultimate-guide-to-prompting-chatgpt. It's usually only for paying subscribers, but you can get it here for free.To hear more from Dan Shipper:Subscribe to Every: https://every.to/subscribe Follow him on X: https://twitter.com/danshipper Move fast, don't break thingsMost AI coding tools don't know which line of code will actually break your system. Try Augment Code, which understands your entire codebase, including the repos, languages, and dependencies that actually runs your business, and use their playbook to learn more about their framework, checklists, and assessments. Ship 30% faster with 40% shorter merge times.[Playbook at https://www.augmentcode.com/]Timestamps:  00:01:57 - Introduction00:11:51 - Designing an AI browser that's intuitive to use00:15:24 - How the web changes if agents do most of the browsing00:25:06 - Why traditional websites will not become obsolete00:29:00 - A browser that stays out of the way versus one that shows you around00:39:51 - How the team uses Codex to build Atlas00:44:47 - The craft of coding with AI tools00:52:33 - Why Goodger and Fisher care so much about browsersLinks to resources mentioned in the episode:Ben Goodger: Ben Goodger (@bengoodger) Darin Fisher: Darin Fisher (@darinwf) OpenAI's browser, Atlas: Introducing ChatGPT Atlas

A CMO Confidential Interview with Pete Imwalla, former CEO of RPA and 4A's board member. Pete shares his take on how many tech changes resulted in additional agency headcount, how AI is rapidly reversing that trend, and why many agency valuations have dropped significantly over the last 5 years. Key topics include: why brand building is like infrastructure; how Publicis is bucking the trend; how to think about "in-housing;" and why Paul Roetzer's CMO 2023 CMO Confidential show was prescient. Tune in to hear about the "2nd mover advantage" and why he hates the concept of "future proofing." Agency economics are getting rewritten in the age of AI. Mike Linton sits down with Pete Imwalle 32-year RPA veteran and former CEO to dissect what's changing—and what leaders should do about it. They cover the shift from reach to relevance, why FTE-based fees are misaligned in an AI world, how to separate automation from actual advantage, and where in-housing does and doesn't work. Along the way: the sustained business impact of the Farmers “We know a thing or two…” campaign, the rise of agentic workflows, and why “future-proofing” starts with culture, not clairvoyance. Chapters00:00:00 – Cold open + show setup00:00:22 – Mike's intro, Pete's background, and today's topic00:01:18 – Farmers campaign wins Sustained Effie) and effectiveness creativity00:02:18 – 30 years of change: from Prodigy/AOL/CompuServe to Netscape and the open web00:03:24 – Google + broadband: when digital finally changed consumer behavior00:04:33 – Mobile's second wave and the trap of “mobile-first/AI-first” strategies00:06:01 – How agencies adapted: leadership, curiosity, and tolerance for experimentation00:07:42 – Investing ahead of revenue: offense + defense in capability building00:08:22 – Reach fragmentation: from “40% on Cheers” to only the Super Bowl00:09:18 – The real squeeze: boards treating advertising as expense, not investment00:10:13 – Short-termism, PE/VC incentives, and brand vs. performance00:12:21 – “Adapt or die”: AI as an extinction event? (hat tip: Paul Roetzer)00:13:28 – Agentic workflows: shrinking grunt work (esp. media & strategy ops)00:16:00 – Client asks: “give me savings, don't risk my IP”00:16:36 – Why FTE pricing disincentivizes efficiency; pay for outcomes instead00:17:51 – Three futures: AI-native, AI-emergent, or obsolete00:21:39 – Holding-company moves; why Publicis is outpacing peers00:22:00 – Agency valuations: ~40% decline over five years; second-mover advantage in AI00:26:37 – In-housing: when it works, when it backfires, and true cost to own00:28:48 – Build vs. buy: amortization, maintenance, and staying current00:30:16 – The Geico lesson: investing through the curve until returns flatten00:31:22 – What to test by EOY 2026: culture, change management, and low-hanging automation00:34:02 – Ditch “future-proofing”; hire for curiosity and adaptability00:35:35 – Wrap + where to find more CMO ConfidentialTagsCMO Confidential,Mike Linton,Pete Imwalle,RPA,agency economics,advertising,marketing leadership,AI in marketing,agentic workflows,media planning,marketing strategy,brand vs performance,FTE pricing,procurement,in-housing,holding companies,Publicis,Omnicom,Super Bowl ads,Effie Awards,Farmers Insurance campaign,Geico case study,change management,digital transformation,marketing AI,MarTech,measurement,short term vs long term,CMO,CEO,CFO,board governanceSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang and senior leaders from Investment Management Andrew Slimmon and Jitania Kandhari unpack new investment trends from supportive monetary and fiscal policy and shifting market leadership. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Today we're revisiting the 2026 global equity outlook with two senior leaders from Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Andrew Slimmon: I am Andrew Slimmon, Head of Applied Equity Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Jitania Kandhari: And I'm Jitania Kandhari, Deputy CIO of the Solutions and Multi-Asset Group, Portfolio Manager for Passport Strategies and Head of Macro and Thematic Research for Emerging Market Equities within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.It's Tuesday, February 3rd at 10 am in New York. So as investors are entering in 2026, after several years of very strong equity returns with policy support reaccelerating. As regular listeners have probably heard, Mike Wilson, who of course is CIO and Chief Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley – his view is that we ended a three-year rolling earnings recession in last April and entered a rolling recovery and a new bull market. Now, Andrew, in the spirit of debate, I know you have a different take on valuations and where we are at in the cycle. I'd love to hear how you're framing this for investment management clients. Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I mean, I guess I focus a little bit more on the behavioral cycle. And I think that from a behavioral cycle we're following a very consistent pattern, which is we had a bad bear market in 2022 that bottomed down 25 percent. And that provided a wonderful opportunity to invest. But early in a behavioral cycle, investors are very pessimistic. And that was really the story of [20]23 and really 2024, which were; investors, you know, were negative on equities. The ratios were all very negative and investors sold out of equities. And that's consistent with a early cycle. And then as you move into the third-fourth year, investors tend to get more optimistic about returns. Doesn't necessarily mean the market goes down. But what it does mean is the market tends to get more volatile and returns start to compress, and ultimately, bull markets die on euphoria. And so, I think it's late cycle, but it's not end of cycle. And that's my theme; is late cycle but not end of cycle.Serena Tang: And I think on that point, one very unusual feature of this environment is that you have both monetary and fiscal policy being supportive at the same time, which, of course, rarely happens outside of recession. So how do you see those dual policy forces shaping market behavior and which parts of the market tend to benefit? Andrew Slimmon: Well, that's exactly right. Look, the last time I checked, page one of the investment handbook says, ‘Don't fight the Fed.' And so, you have monetary policy easing. And what we; remember what happened in 2021? The Fed raised rates and monetary policy was tightening. Equities do well when the Fed is easing, and that's one of the reasons why I think it's not end of cycle. And then you layer in fiscal policy with tax relief coming, it is a reason to be relatively optimistic on equities in 2026. But it doesn't mean there can't be bumps along the way – and I think a higher level of optimism as we're seeing today is a result of that. But I think you stick with those more procyclical areas: Finance, Industrials, Technology, and then you move down the cap curve a little bit. I think those are the winning trades. They really started to come to the fore in the second half of last year, and I think that will continue into 2026. Serena Tang: Right. And we've definitely seen some bumps recently, but I think on your point around yields. So, Jitania, I think that policy backdrop really ties directly to your idea of the age of capped real rates. In very simple terms, can you explain what that means and what's behind that view? Jitania Kandhari: Sure. When I say age of real rates being capped, I mean like the structural template within which I'm operating, and real rates here are defined by the 10-year on the Treasury yield adjusted for CPI.Firstly, I'd say there was too much linear thinking in markets post Liberation Day. That tariffs equals inflation equals higher rates. Now, tariff impacts, as we have seen, can be offset in several ways, and economic relationships are rarely linear.So, inflation may not go up to the extent market is expecting. So that supports the case for capped rates. And the real constraint is the debt arithmetic, right? So, if you look at the history of public debt in the U.S., whenever there was a surge in public debt during the Civil War, two World Wars, Global Financial Crisis, even during COVID. In all these periods, when debt spiked, real rates have remained negative.So, there can be short term swings in rates, but I believe that markets not necessarily central banks will even enforce that cap. Serena Tang: You've described this moment, as the great broadening of 2026. What's driving this and what do you think is happening now after years of very narrow concentration? Jitania Kandhari: Yes. I think like if last decade was about concentration, now it's going to be about breadth. And if you look at where the concentration was, it was in the [Mag] 7, in the AI trade. We are beginning to see some cracks in the consensus where adoption is happening, but monetization is lagging. But clearly the next phase of value creation could happen from just the model building to the application layer, as you guys have also talked about – from enablers to adopters.The other thing we are seeing is two AI ecosystems evolve globally. The high cost cutting edge U.S. innovation engine and the lower cost efficiency driven Chinese model, each of them have their own supply chain beneficiaries. And as AI is moving into physical world, you're going to see more opportunities. And then secondly, I think there are limitations on this tariff policies globally; and tariff fears to me remain more of an illusion than a reality because U.S. needs to import a lot of intermediate goods And then lastly, I see domestic cycles inflecting upwards in many other pockets of the world. And you add all this up; the message is clear that leadership is broadening and portfolio should broaden too. Serena Tang: And I want to sort of stay on this topic of broadening. So, Andrew, I think, you've also highlighted, you know, this market broadening, especially beyond the large cap leaders, even as AI investment continues, I think, as you touched on earlier. So why does that matter for equity leadership in 2026? And can you talk about the impact of this broadening on valuations in general? Andrew Slimmon: Sure. So I think, you know, I've been around a long time and I remember when the internet first rolled out, the Mosaic browser was introduced in 1993. And the first thing the stock market tried to do is appoint winners – of who was going to win the internet, you know, search race. And it was Ask Jeeves and it was Yahoo and it was Netscape. Well, none of those were the winners. We just don't know who's ultimately going to be the tech winner. I think it's much safer to know that just like the internet, AI is a technology productivity enhancing tool, and companies are going to embrace AI just like they embraced the internet. And the reason the stock market doubled between 1997 and the dotcom peak was that productivity margins went up for a lot of companies in a lot of industries as they embraced the internet. So, to me, a broadening out and looking at lower valuations, it is in many ways safer than saying this is the technology winner, and this is technology loser. I think it's all many different industries are going to embrace and benefit from what's going on with AI. Serena Tang: You don't want to know where I was in 1993. And I don't recognize most of those names. Andrew Slimmon: Sorry. I was 14! Serena Tang: [Laughs] Ok. Investors often hear two competing messages now. Ignore the macro and buy great companies or let the big picture drive everything. How do you balance top-down signals with bottom-up fundamentals in your investment process? Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I think you have to employ both, and I hear that all the time; especially I hear, you know, my competitors, ‘Oh, I just focus on my stock picks, my bottom up.' But, you know, look statistically, two-thirds of a manager's relative performance comes from macro. You know, how did growth do? How did value do? All those types of things that have nothing to do with what stock picks... And likewise, much of a return of an individual stock has to do with things beyond just what's happening fundamentally. But some of it comes from what's happening at the company level. So, I think to be a great investor, you have to be aware of the macro. The Fed cutting rates this year is a very powerful tool, and if you don't understand the amplifications of that as per what types of stocks work, because you're so focused on the micro, I think that's a mistake. Likewise, you have to know what's going on in your company [be]cause one third of term does come from actual stock selection. So, I'm a big believer in marrying a top down and a bottom up and try to capture the two thirds and the one third.Serena Tang: Since that 2022 bear market low that you talked about earlier. I mean, your framework really favored growth and value over defensives. But I think more recently you've increased your non-U.S. exposure. What changed in your top-down signals and bottom-up data to make global opportunities more compelling now? Is it the narrative of the end of U.S. exceptionalism or something else? Andrew Slimmon: No, I really think it's actually something else, which is we have picked up signals from other parts of the world, Europe and Japan. That are different signals than we saw really for the last decade, which is namely that pro-cyclical stocks started to work. Value stocks started to work in the first half of 2025. And you look at the history of when that happens, usually value doesn't work for a year and peter out. So that's been a huge change where I would say, a safer orientation has shown the relative leadership, and we have to be – recognize that. So, in our global strategies, we've been heavily weighted towards, the U.S. orientation because we didn't see really a cyclical bias outside. And now that's changing and that has caused us to increase the allocation to non-U.S. exposure. It's a longwinded way of saying, look, I think what the story of last year was the U.S. did just fine. But there were parts of the world that did better and I think that will continue in 2026. Serena Tang: Andrew, Jitania thank you so much for taking the time to talk. Andrew Slimmon: Great speaking with you, Serena. Jitania Kandhari: Thanks for having us on the show. Serena Tang: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Another chilly evening in Western Europe, as Elliot Williams is joined this week by Jenny List to chew the fat over the week's hacks. It's been an auspicious week for anniversaries, with the hundredth since the first demonstration of a working television system in a room above a London coffee shop. John Logie Baird's mechanically-scanned TV may have ultimately been a dead-end superseded by the all-electronic systems we all know, but the importance of television for the later half of the 20th century and further is beyond question. The standout hacks of the week include a very clever use of the ESP32's WiFi API to detect people moving through a WiFi field, a promising open-source smartphone, another ESP32 project in a comms system for cyclists, more cycling on tensegrity spokes, a clever way to smooth plaster casts, and a light sculpture reflecting Wi-Fi traffic. Then there are a slew of hacks including 3D printed PCBs and gem-cut dichroic prisms, before we move to the can't-miss articles. There we're looking at document preservation, and a wallow in internet history with a look at the Netscape brand. As usual all the links you need can be found over on Hackaday, so listen, and enjoy!

#podcast #apple #tecnologia ía #historiatech #youtube #ciberseguridad #airtag PLAYLIST Rolones: https://acortar.link/syEyR7Hoy viajamos por momentos clave que marcaron la historia de la tecnología y la cultura digital. Desde el lanzamiento de la primera Macintosh de Apple y la inspiración en el diseño de Braun, hasta el nacimiento de Netscape como el primer navegador comercial y la llegada de YouTube en 2005.También exploramos temas actuales y curiosos: el impacto mediático de Sydney Sweeney, el consumo del “azulito” en México, una entrevista con Uvicuo, los riesgos de ciberataques durante el Mundial, el impresionante cortometraje de Google DeepMind, el anuncio de la película de Super Mario Galaxy, un récord del Libro Guinness y la nueva generación del AirTag.Un recorrido entre historia, polémica, cultura digital y el futuro de la tecnología.00:00 INICIO03:07 PATROCINIOS03:34 COMENTARIOS05:24 UN DÍA COMO HOY - APPLE PRIMERA MAC10:29 ¿APPLE LE COPIÓ A BRAUN?11:48 NETSCAPE: PRIMER NAVEGADOR WEB COMERCIAL14:48 YOUTUBE EN 200520:49 SYDNEY SWEENEY Y SU LENCERÍA22:52 MÉXICO GASTA MUCHO EN EL AZULITO28:34 ENTREVISTA UVICUO46:10 CIBERATAQUES EN EL MUNDIAL48:01 EL CORTOMETRAJE DE GOOGLE DEEPMIND51:13 SUPER MARIO GALAXY MOVIE52:17 LIBRO GUINNESS01:01:06 NUEVA GENERACIÓN DE AIRTAG Y FINAL

Marc Andreessen is a founder, investor, and co-founder of Netscape, as well as co-founder of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z). In this conversation, we dig into why we're living through a unique and one of the most incredible times in history, and what comes next.We discuss:1. Why AI is arriving at the perfect moment to counter demographic collapse and declining productivity2. How Marc has raised his 10-year-old kid to thrive in an AI-driven world3. What's actually going to happen with AI and jobs (spoiler: he thinks the panic is “totally off base”)4. The “Mexican standoff” that's happening between product managers, designers, and engineers5. Why you should still learn to code (even with AI)6. How to develop an “E-shaped” career that combines multiple skills, with AI as a force multiplier7. The career advice he keeps coming back to (“Don't be fungible”)8. How AI can democratize one-on-one tutoring, potentially transforming education9. His media diet: X and old books, nothing in between—Brought to you by:DX—The developer intelligence platform designed by leading researchersBrex—The banking solution for startupsDatadog—Now home to Eppo, the leading experimentation and feature flagging platform—Episode transcript: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/marc-andreessen-the-real-ai-boom—Archive of all Lenny's Podcast transcripts: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/yxi4s2w998p1gvtpu4193/AMdNPR8AOw0lMklwtnC0TrQ?rlkey=j06x0nipoti519e0xgm23zsn9&st=ahz0fj11&dl=0—Where to find Marc Andreessen:• X: https://x.com/pmarca• Substack: https://pmarca.substack.com• Andreessen Horowitz's website: https://a16z.com• Andreessen Horowitz's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@a16z—Where to find Lenny:• Newsletter: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com• X: https://twitter.com/lennysan• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lennyrachitsky/—In this episode, we cover:(00:00) Introduction to Marc Andreessen(04:27) The historic moment we're living in(06:52) The impact of AI on society(11:14) AI's role in education and parenting(22:15) The future of jobs in an AI-driven world(30:15) Marc's past predictions(35:35) The Mexican standoff of tech roles(39:28) Adapting to changing job tasks(42:15) The shift to scripting languages(44:50) The importance of understanding code(51:37) The value of design in the AI era(53:30) The T-shaped skill strategy(01:02:05) AI's impact on founders and companies(01:05:58) The concept of one-person billion-dollar companies(01:08:33) Debating AI moats and market dynamics(01:14:39) The rapid evolution of AI models(01:18:05) Indeterminate optimism in venture capital(01:22:17) The concept of AGI and its implications(01:30:00) Marc's media diet(01:36:18) Favorite movies and AI voice technology(01:39:24) Marc's product diet(01:43:16) Closing thoughts and recommendations—Referenced:• Linus Torvalds on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/linustorvalds• The philosopher's stone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher%27s_stone• Alexander the Great: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great• Aristotle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle• Bloom's 2 sigma problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem• Alpha School: https://alpha.school• In Tech We Trust? A Debate with Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen: https://a16z.com/in-tech-we-trust-a-debate-with-peter-thiel-and-marc-andreessen• John Woo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woo• Assembly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_language• C programming language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)• Python: https://www.python.org• Netscape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape• Perl: https://www.perl.org• Scott Adams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Adams• Larry Summers's website: https://larrysummers.com• Nano Banana: https://gemini.google/overview/image-generation• Bitcoin: https://bitcoin.org• Ethereum: https://ethereum.org• Satoshi Nakamoto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto• Inside ChatGPT: The fastest-growing product in history | Nick Turley (Head of ChatGPT at OpenAI): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/inside-chatgpt-nick-turley• Anthropic co-founder on quitting OpenAI, AGI predictions, $100M talent wars, 20% unemployment, and the nightmare scenarios keeping him up at night | Ben Mann: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/anthropic-co-founder-benjamin-mann• Inside Google's AI turnaround: The rise of AI Mode, strategy behind AI Overviews, and their vision for AI-powered search | Robby Stein (VP of Product, Google Search): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/how-google-built-ai-mode-in-under-a-year• DeepSeek: https://www.deepseek.com• Cowork: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/13345190-getting-started-with-cowork• Definite vs. indefinite thinking: Notes from Zero to One by Peter Thiel: https://boxkitemachine.net/posts/zero-to-one-peter-thiel-definite-vs-indefinite-thinking• Henry Ford: https://www.thehenryford.org/explore/stories-of-innovation/visionaries/henry-ford• Lex Fridman Podcast: https://lexfridman.com/podcast• $46B of hard truths from Ben Horowitz: Why founders fail and why you need to run toward fear (a16z co-founder): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/46b-of-hard-truths-from-ben-horowitz• Eddington: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31176520• Joaquin Phoenix: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaquin_Phoenix• Pedro Pascal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Pascal• George Floyd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd• Replit: https://replit.com• Behind the product: Replit | Amjad Masad (co-founder and CEO): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/behind-the-product-replit-amjad-masad• Grok Bad Rudi: https://grok.com/badrudi• Wispr Flow: https://wisprflow.ai• Star Trek: The Next Generation: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092455• Star Trek: Starfleet Academy: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8622160• a16z: The Power Brokers: https://www.notboring.co/p/a16z-the-power-brokers—Production and marketing by https://penname.co/. For inquiries about sponsoring the podcast, email podcast@lennyrachitsky.com.—Lenny may be an investor in the companies discussed. To hear more, visit www.lennysnewsletter.com

Can a country be built from the internet up? Not as a metaphor or an online community, but as a system that replaces institutions we usually think of as fixed, money, law, and governance.In this conversation taken from The Network State Podcast, a16z cofounder Ben Horowitz joins Balaji Srinivasan to explore how internet native institutions are beginning to mirror and challenge traditional state structures. Drawing parallels to China's early special economic zones, they discuss how constrained experiments like Shenzhen tested new rules without rewriting the entire system, and why similar experimentation is now happening online.The discussion examines crypto, digital identity, and network states as attempts to turn code into coordination and coordination into legitimacy, while grappling with a core tension. Code is deterministic, but societies are not. Ben and Balaji explore where these systems work, where they break, and whether network states are a curiosity or the next phase of governance. Resources:Follow Ben on X: https://x.com/bhorowitzFollow Balaji on X: https://x.com/balajisListen to more from The Network State: https://ns.com/podcast Stay Updated:If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to like, subscribe, and share with your friends!Find a16z on X: https://x.com/a16zFind a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16zListen to the a16z Podcast on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5bC65RDvs3oxnLyqqvkUYXListen to the a16z Podcast on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a16z-podcast/id842818711Follow our host: https://x.com/eriktorenberg](https://x.com/eriktorenbergPlease note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see http://a16z.com/disclosures.    Stay Updated:Find a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Our guest this week is Hugh Hempel, a technology industry veteran turned health care entrepreneur and father of identical twin daughters with Niemann Pick Type C.Hugh and his wife Chris, have been married for 25 years and are the proud parents of identical twin daughters Addison & Cassidy.  The girls were born in January 2004 and were both diagnosed with Niemann Pick Type C, a type of childhood ALS, a very rare neurogenerative disease.  Despite heroic efforts to find a cure and treatments, very sadly the twins passed away in 2019 at age 15.After a successful tech career that included working at: IBM, Apple and Netscape, to name a few, and as a result of the twins' diagnosis, Hugh & Chris became outspoken advocates for rare disease research.  They also created the Addi & Cassidy Fund, a resource for families impacted by Niemann Pick, Cyclodextrin, and a myriad of stories, and resources for families impacted by a wide range of rare diseases.  Hugh has also served in a wide range of leadership positions, including Solutions Therapuetics, Sparkpr, Parent Advocist, N=1 Collaboration and Strainz.  In January 2015 Hugh gave a TEDx Talk presentation entitled: Why I Changed My Mind About Medical Cannabis, coincidentally on Addi & Cassidy's 11th birthday.  We'll hear about the Hempel family and about Hugh and Chris' quest to find a cure and treatments for  rare and ultra rare diseases, all on this episode of the SFN Dad To Dad Podcast.  This is the final sintallment of this two part interview. Show Links Phone - (775) 338-4844Email – Hugh@Hempelfamily.com LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/in/hughhempel/?skipRedirect=true Website – N=1 Collaboration – https://www.n1collaborative.org/Website – Addi & Cassie Fund - https://addiandcassi.com/TEDx Talk – Why I Changed My Mind About Medical Cannabis (January2015) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N8QMeIsX2c&t=1sDr. Sanjay Gupta CNN story (11.22.14) -https://vimeo.com/420572177?fl=pl&fe=vlMayo Clinic NPT1 - https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/niemann-pick/symptoms-causes/syc-20355887MIPLYFFA Website - https://miplyffa.com/Special Fathers Network –SFN is a dad to dad mentoring program for fathers raising children with special needs. Many of the 800+ SFN Mentor Fathers, who are raising kids with special needs, have said: “I wish there was something like this when we first received our child's diagnosis. I felt so isolated.  There was no one within my family, at work, at church or within my friend group who understood or could relate to what I was going through.”SFN Mentor Fathers share their experiences with younger dads closer to the beginning of their journey raising a child with the same or similar special needs. The SFN Mentor Fathers do NOT offer legal or medical advice, that is what lawyers and doctors do. They simply share their experiences and how they have made the most of challenging situations.Check out the 21CD YouTube Channel with dozens of videos on topics relevant to dads raising children with special needs - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzDFCvQimWNEb158ll6Q4cA/videosPlease support the SFN. Click here to donate: https://21stcenturydads.org/donate/Special Fathers Network: https://21stcenturydads.org/  SFN Mastermind Group - https://21stcenturydads.org/sfn-mastermind-group/Special thanks to SFN Mentor Father, SFN Mastermind Group dad and 21CD board member Shane Madden for creating the SFN jingle on the front and back end of the podcast.. 

Our guest this week Hugh Hempel of Denver, CO, a technology industry veteran turned health care entrepreneur and father of identical twin daughters with Niemann Pick Type C.Hugh and his wife Chris, have been married for 25 years and are the proud parents of identical twin daughters Addison & Cassidy.  The girls were born in January 2004 and were both diagnosed with Niemann Pick Type C, a type of childhood ALS, a very rare neurogenerative disease.  Despite heroic efforts to find a cure and treatments, very sadly the twins passed away in 2019 at age 15.After a successful tech career that included working at: IBM, Apple and Netscape to name a few, and as a result of the twins' diagnosis, Hugh & Chris became outspoken advocates for rare disease research.  They also created the Addi & Cassidy Fund, a resource for families impacted by Niemann Pick, Cyclodextrin, and a myriad of stories, and resources for families impacted by a wide range of rare diseases.  Hugh has also served in a wide range of leadership positions, including Solutions Therapuetics, Sparkpr, Parent Advocist, N=1 Collaboration and Strainz.  In January 2015 Hugh gave a TEDx Talk presentation entitled: Why I Changed My Mind About Medical Cannabis, coincidentally on Addi & Cassidy's 11th birthday.  We'll hear about the Hempel family and about Hugh and Chris' quest to find a cure and treatments for  rare and ultra rare diseases, all on this episode of the SFN Dad To Dad Podcast.  This is Part 1 of a two part interview. Show Links Phone - (775) 338-4844Email – Hugh@Hempelfamily.com LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/in/hughhempel/?skipRedirect=true Website – N=1 Collaboration – https://www.n1collaborative.org/Website – Addi & Cassie Fund - https://addiandcassi.com/TEDx Talk – Why I Changed My Mind About Medical Cannabis (January2015) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N8QMeIsX2c&t=1sDr. Sanjay Gupta CNN story (11.22.14) -https://vimeo.com/420572177?fl=pl&fe=vlMayo Clinic NPT1 - https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/niemann-pick/symptoms-causes/syc-20355887MIPLYFFA Website - https://miplyffa.com/Special Fathers Network –SFN is a dad to dad mentoring program for fathers raising children with special needs. Many of the 800+ SFN Mentor Fathers, who are raising kids with special needs, have said: “I wish there was something like this when we first received our child's diagnosis. I felt so isolated.  There was no one within my family, at work, at church or within my friend group who understood or could relate to what I was going through.”SFN Mentor Fathers share their experiences with younger dads closer to the beginning of their journey raising a child with the same or similar special needs. The SFN Mentor Fathers do NOT offer legal or medical advice, that is what lawyers and doctors do. They simply share their experiences and how they have made the most of challenging situations.Check out the 21CD YouTube Channel with dozens of videos on topics relevant to dads raising children with special needs - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzDFCvQimWNEb158ll6Q4cA/videosPlease support the SFN. Click here to donate: https://21stcenturydads.org/donate/Special Fathers Network: https://21stcenturydads.org/  SFN Mastermind Group - https://21stcenturydads.org/sfn-mastermind-group/Special thanks to SFN Mentor Father, SFN Mastermind Group dad and 21CD board member Shane Madden for creating the SFN jingle on the front and back end of the podcast.. 

Corey Zumar is a Product Manager at Databricks, working on MLflow and LLM evaluation, tracing, and lifecycle tooling for generative AI.Jules Damji is a Lead Developer Advocate at Databricks, working on Spark, lakehouse technologies, and developer education across the data and AI community.Danny Chiao is an Engineering Leader at Databricks, working on data and AI observability, quality, and production-grade governance for ML and agent systems.MLflow Leading Open Source // MLOps Podcast #356 with Databricks' Corey Zumar, Jules Damji, and Danny ChiaoJoin the Community: https://go.mlops.community/YTJoinInGet the newsletter: https://go.mlops.community/YTNewsletterShoutout to Databricks for powering this MLOps Podcast episode.// AbstractMLflow isn't just for data scientists anymore—and pretending it is is holding teams back. Corey Zumar, Jules Damji, and Danny Chiao break down how MLflow is being rebuilt for GenAI, agents, and real production systems where evals are messy, memory is risky, and governance actually matters. The takeaway: if your AI stack treats agents like fancy chatbots or splits ML and software tooling, you're already behind.// BioCorey ZumarCorey has been working as a Software Engineer at Databricks for the last 4 years and has been an active contributor to and maintainer of MLflow since its first release. Jules Damji Jules is a developer advocate at Databricks Inc., an MLflow and Apache Spark™ contributor, and Learning Spark, 2nd Edition coauthor. He is a hands-on developer with over 25 years of experience. He has worked at leading companies, such as Sun Microsystems, Netscape, @Home, Opsware/LoudCloud, VeriSign, ProQuest, Hortonworks, Anyscale, and Databricks, building large-scale distributed systems. He holds a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in computer science (from Oregon State University and Cal State, Chico, respectively) and an MA in political advocacy and communication (from Johns Hopkins University)Danny ChiaoDanny is an engineering lead at Databricks, leading efforts around data observability (quality, data classification). Previously, Danny led efforts at Tecton (+ Feast, an open source feature store) and Google to build ML infrastructure and large-scale ML-powered features. Danny holds a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science from MIT.// Related LinksWebsite: https://mlflow.org/https://www.databricks.com/~~~~~~~~ ✌️Connect With Us ✌️ ~~~~~~~Catch all episodes, blogs, newsletters, and more: https://go.mlops.community/TYExploreJoin our Slack community [https://go.mlops.community/slack]Follow us on X/Twitter [@mlopscommunity](https://x.com/mlopscommunity) or [LinkedIn](https://go.mlops.community/linkedin)] Sign up for the next meetup: [https://go.mlops.community/register]MLOps Swag/Merch: [https://shop.mlops.community/]Connect with Demetrios on LinkedIn: /dpbrinkmConnect with Corey on LinkedIn: /corey-zumar/Connect with Jules on LinkedIn: /dmatrix/Connect with Danny on LinkedIn: /danny-chiao/Timestamps:[00:00] MLflow Open Source Focus[00:49] MLflow Agents in Production[00:00] AI UX Design Patterns[12:19] Context Management in Chat[19:24] Human Feedback in MLflow[24:37] Prompt Entropy and Optimization[30:55] Evolving MLFlow Personas[36:27] Persona Expansion vs Separation[47:27] Product Ecosystem Design[54:03] PII vs Business Sensitivity[57:51] Wrap up

We are taught that great businesses are built on process, management, and roadmaps. But my guest today says that this exact mindset is what kills innovation and drives your best people to quit.Marty Cagan is the "Godfather of Product." He is the founder of the Silicon Valley Product Group and has worked with the giants that defined the internet, including Hewlett-Packard, Netscape, and eBay. He is the man the world's most successful CEOs call when they stop growing.In this conversation, Marty exposes the "Feature Factory" trap that 90% of companies fall into, explains why you should never hire a "Mercenary," and reveals the specific leadership secrets used by Apple, Amazon, and Netflix to dominate their industries.If you are a CEO, a founder, or a leader who wants to build something that actually matters, this is the warning you need to hear.

Larry Page said in the early day, a guiding principle is Do No Evil. I wonder if we can say that today or is it just business as usual? Dave Young: Welcome to the Empire Builders Podcast, teaching business owners the not-so secret techniques that took famous businesses from mom-and-pop to major brands. Stephen Semple is a marketing consultant, story collector, and storyteller. I’m Stephen’s sidekick and business partner, Dave Young. Before we get into today’s episode, a word from our sponsor, which is, well, it’s us, but we’re highlighting ads we’ve written and produced for our clients. So, here’s one of those. [Out of this World Plumbing Ad] Dave Young: This is the Empire Builders Podcast, by the way. Dave Young here, Steve Semple there. I wonder, Stephen, if we could do this whole episode without mentioning the name of the company that we’re going to be talking about. I ask that for the simple reason of they already know. They already know what we’re talking about. They already know we’re talking about them. They probably knew we were going to talk about them. Stephen Semple: Because of all the research I’ve done on my computer. Dave Young: No, because they’re listening to everything. They probably already know the date that this is going to come out and how long it’s… I don’t know, right? When they first started, and I don’t think we felt that way about them, and I can remember back in the early 2000s, just after the turn- Stephen Semple: In the early days, they had a statement. Larry Page was very famous. Dave Young: Yeah, “Do no evil.” Stephen Semple: “Do know evil. Do no evil,” and that was a very, very big part. In fact, in the early stages, they made a bunch of decisions that challenged the company financially because they were like, “This is not good experience for the person on the other end.” I wonder if anybody’s guessed yet what we’re going to be talking about. Dave Young: Well, then you go public, and it’s all about shareholders, right? It’s like the shareholders are like, “Well, we don’t care if you do evil or not. We want you to make money.” That’s what it’s about because you have [inaudible 00:03:01]. Stephen Semple: All those things happen. Dave Young: Yeah. Stephen Semple: This company that we’re talking about, we’ll go a little while before we’ll let the name out, was founded… On September 4th in 1998 was when it was actually founded. Dave Young: Oh, ’98. It goes back before the turn of the century [inaudible 00:03:14]. Stephen Semple: Yeah. It was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who met at Stanford. Interesting note, the Stanford grads also created Yahoo. Dave Young: Okay, yeah. Stephen Semple: That’s giving you another little clue about the company that we might be talking about. Dave Young: In the same geek club. Stephen Semple: Yeah, so 1998. I was thinking back, one year after I graduated from university, Windows 98 is launched and, believe it or not, the last Seinfeld episode aired. Dave Young: Are you kidding me? Stephen Semple: No, isn’t that crazy? Dave Young: ’98. Stephen Semple: Yeah. Dave Young: I mean, I was busy raising four daughters in ’98. Stephen Semple: Yeah. Today, this company, as you said, because you didn’t want me to name the company, has more net income than any other business in US history. It has, now, I got to let the cat out of the bag, eight and a half billion searches a day happen. And yes, we’re talking about the birth of Google, which is also now known as part of the Alphabet group. Dave Young: Alphabet, yeah. It’s funny how they got to get a name that means everything. Did they have a name before Google? I know Google was like… Oh, it’s a number really, right? It’s a gazillion, bazillion Googleplex. Stephen Semple: As we’ll go into a little bit later, they actually spelled it wrong when they registered the site. That’s not actually the way that the word is spelled. I’ll have to go… But yeah, the first iteration was a product called BackRub was the name of it. Dave Young: Backrub, okay. Stephen Semple: Alphabet also owns the second largest search engine, which is YouTube. Together, basically, it’s a $2 trillion business, which is larger than the economy of Canada. It’s this amazing thing. Going back to 1998, there are dozens of search engines all using different business models. Now, today Alphabet’s like 90% in the market. Up until this point, it’s been unassailable, and it’s going to be really interesting to see what the future of AI and whatnot brings to that business. But we’re not talking about the future, we’re talking about the past here, so back to the start. Larry Page was born in Lansing, Michigan. His dad is a professor of computer science. His mom is also a computer academic. This is in the ’70s. Between 1979 and ’80, his dad does a stint at Stanford and then also goes to work at Microsoft. Now, Larry and Sergey meet at Stanford, and they’re very ambitious, they’re equal co-founders, but Larry had this thing he also talked about where he said, “You need to do more than just invent things.” It wasn’t about inventing things, it was about creating things that people would use. Here’s what’s going on in the world of the web at this time to understand what’s going on. Here’s some web stats. In 1993, there’s 130 websites in the world. In 1996, three years later, there’s 600,000 websites. That’s a 723% growth year over year. The world has never seen growth like that before. Dave Young: Right, yeah. It was amazing to experience it. People that are younger than us don’t realize what it was. Josh Johnson, the comedian, has a great routine on trying to explain to people what it was like before Google. You needed to know something- Stephen Semple: What it was like for the internet. Dave Young: Yeah. You had to ask somebody who knew. If you needed the answer to a question, you had to ask somebody. And if they didn’t know, then you had to find somebody else, or you had to go to the library and ask a librarian and they would help you find the answer- Stephen Semple: Well, I don’t think it’s like a- Dave Young: … maybe by giving you a book that may or may not have the answer. Stephen Semple: Here’s an important point. I want you to put a pin in that research. We’re going to come back to it. I was about to go down a rabbit hole, but let’s come back to this in just a moment, because this is a very, very important point here about the birth of Google. Larry and Sergey first worked on systems to allow people to make annotations and notes directly on websites with no human involved, but the problem is that that could just overrun a site because there was no systems for ranking or order or anything along that lines. The other question they started to ask is, “Which annotations should someone look at? What are the ones that have authority?” This then created the idea of page rankings. All of this became messy, and this led to them to asking the question, “What if we just focused on ranking webpages?” which led to ranking search. Now, whole idea was ranking was based upon authority and credibility, and they drew this idea from academia. So when we would do research, David, and you’d find that one book, what did you do to figure out who the authority was on the topic? You went and you saw what book did that cite, what research did this book cite. The further you went back in those citations, the closer you got to the true authority, right? Do you remember doing that type of research? Dave Young: Yeah, sure. Stephen Semple: Right. They looked at that and they went, “Well, that’s how you establish credibility and authority is who’s citing who.” Okay. They decided that what they were going to do was do that for the web, and the way the web did that was links, especially in the early days where a lot of it was research. Dave Young: Yeah. If a whole bunch of people linked to you, then that gives you authority over the words that they used to link on and- Stephen Semple: Well, and also in the early days, those links carried a lot of metadata around what the author thought, like, “Why was the link there?” In the early days, backlinks were incredibly important. Now, SEO weasels are still today talking about backlinks, which is complete. Dude, backlinks, yeah, they kind of matter, but they’re… Anyway, I could go down a rabbit hole. Dave Young: Yeah. It’s like anything, the grifters figure out a way to hack the system and make something that’s not authoritative seem like it is. Stephen Semple: Yeah. It’s harder that you can’t hack the system today. Anyway, but the technology challenge, how do you figure out who’s backedlinked to who? Well, the only way you can do it is you have to crawl the entire web, copy the entire web, and reverse engineer the computation to do this. Dave Young: Yeah. It’s huge. We’ve been talking about Google’s algorithm for as long as Google’s been around. That’s the magic of it, right? Stephen Semple: Yeah. In the early days, with them doing it as a research project, they could do it because there was hundreds of sites. If this happened even two years later, like 1996, it would’ve been completely impossible because the sheer size to do it as a research project, right? Now, they called this system BackRub, and they started to shop this technology to other search engines because, again, remember there was HotBot and Lyco and Archie and AltaVista and Yahoo and Excite and Infoseek. There were a ton of these search engines. Dave Young: Don’t forget Ask Jeeves. Stephen Semple: Ask Jeeves? Actually, Ask Jeeves might’ve even been a little bit later, but yeah, Ask Jeeves was one of them once when it was around. Dave Young: There was one that was Dogpile that was… It would search a bunch of search engines. Stephen Semple: Right, yeah. There was all sorts of things. Dave Young: Yeah. Stephen Semple: There was another one called Excite, and they got close to doing a deal with Excite. They got a meeting with them, and they’re looking at a license deal, million dollars for BackRub, and they would go into the summer and they would implement it because they were still students at Stanford. They got so far as running for the executives there a side-by-side test. They demo this test and the results were so good with BackRub. Here’s what execs at Excite said, “Why on earth would we want to use your engine? We want people to stay on our site,” because, again, it would push people off the site because web portals had this mentality of keeping people on the site instead of having them leave. So it was a no deal. They go back to school and no one wants BackRub, so they decide to build it for themselves at Stanford. The original name was going to be Whatbox. Dave Young: Whatbox? I’m glad they didn’t use Whatbox. Stephen Semple: Yeah. They thought it sounded too close to a porn site or something like that. Dave Young: Okay, I’ll give them that. Stephen Semple: Larry’s dorm mate suggested Google, which is the mathematical term of 10 to the 100th power, but it’s spelled G-O-O-G-O-L. Dave Young: Googol, mm-hmm. Stephen Semple: Correct. Now, there’s lots of things here. Did Larry Page misregister? Did he decide purposely? There’s all sorts of different stories there, but the one that seems to be the most popular, at least liked the most, is that he misspelled it when he did the registration to G-O-G-G-L-E. Dave Young: I think that’s probably a good thing because when you hear it said, that’s kind of the first thing you go- Stephen Semple: That’s kind of how you spell it. Dave Young: … how you spell it. I think we’d have figured it out, but- Stephen Semple: We would’ve, but things that are easier are always better, right? Dave Young: Yeah. Stephen Semple: By spring of ’98, they’re doing 10,000 searches a day all out of Stanford University. Dave Young: Wait, 10,000 a day out of one place. Stephen Semple: Are using university resources. Everyone else is just using keywords on a page, which led to keyword stuffing, again, another one of these BS SEO keyword stuffing. Now, at one point, one half of the entire computing power at Stanford University is being used for Google searches. It’s the end of the ’98 academic year, and these guys are still students there. Now, sidebar, to this day, Stanford still owns a chunk of Google. Dave Young: Okay. Stephen Semple: Worked out well for Stanford. Dave Young: Yeah, I guess. Stephen Semple: Yeah. Now, Larry and Sergey need some seed round financing because they’ve got to get it off of Stanford. They’ve got to start building computers. They raise a million dollars. Here’s the interesting thing I had no idea. Guess who one of the first round investors are who ended up owning 25% of the company in the seed round? Dave Young: Stay tuned. We’re going to wrap up this story and tell you how to apply this lesson to your business right after this. [Using Stories To Sell Ad] Dave Young: Let’s pick up our story where we left off and trust me you haven’t missed a thing. Stephen Semple: Guess who one of the first round investors are who ended up owning 25% of the company in the seed round? Jeff Bezos. Dave Young: Oh, no kidding. Stephen Semple: Yeah, yeah. Jeff Bezos was one of the first four investors in Google. Dave Young: Okay. Well, here we are. Stephen Semple: Isn’t that incredible? Dave Young: Yeah. Stephen Semple: Now, AltaVista created a very interesting technology because AltaVista grew out of DEC computers who were building super computers at the time. They were basically one of the pre-leaders in search because what they would do is everybody else crawled the internet in series. They were crawling the internet in parallel, and this was a big technological breakthrough. In other words, they didn’t have to do it one at a time. They could send out a whole ton of crawlers, crawling all sorts of different things, all sorts of different pieces, bringing it back and could reassemble it. Dave Young: Got you. Stephen Semple: AltaVista also had therefore the most number of sites indexed. I remember back in the day, launching websites, like pre-2000, and yeah, you would launch a site and you would have to wait for it to be indexed and it could take weeks- Dave Young: You submit it. Yeah, there were things you could do to submit- Stephen Semple: There was things you could submit. Dave Young: … the search engines. Stephen Semple: Yes, yeah, and you would sit and you would wait and you’d be like, “Oh, it got crawled.” Yeah, it was crazy. We don’t think about that today. [inaudible 00:15:57] websites crawl. Dave Young: You’d make updates to your site and you’d need to resubmit it, so it would get crawled again- Stephen Semple: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Dave Young: … if there was new information. Stephen Semple: People would search your site and it would be different than the site that you would have because the updates hadn’t come through and all those other things. In 1998, Yahoo was the largest player. They were a $20 billion business, and they had a hand-curated guide to the internet, which worked at the time, but the explosive growth killed that. There was a point where Yahoo just couldn’t keep up with it. Then Yahoo went to this hybrid where the top part was hand-curated and then backfilled with search engine results. Now, originally, Google was very against the whole idea of banner ads, and this was the way everyone else was making money, because what they knew is people didn’t like banner ads, but you’re tracking eyeballs, you’re growing, you need more infrastructure, because basically their way of doing is they’re copying the entire internet and putting it on their servers and you need more money. Now, one of the other technological breakthroughs is Google figured out how to do this on a whole pile of cheap computers that they just stacked on top of each other, but you still needed money. At this moment, had no model for making money. They were getting all these eyeballs, they were faster because they built data centers around the world because they also figured out that, by decentralizing it, it was faster. They had lots of constraints. What they needed to do at this point was create a business model. What does one do when one needs to create a business model? Well, it’s early 1999, they’re running out of money. They hire Salar Kamangar, who’s a Stanford student, and they give him the job of writing a business plan. “Here, intern, you’re writing the business plan for how we’re going to make money. Go put together a pitch deck.” Dave Young: I wonder if they’re still using the plan. Stephen Semple: What they found at that point was there was basically three ways to make the money. Way number 1 was sell Google Search technology to enterprises. In other words, companies can use this to search their own documents and intranets. Dave Young: I remember that, yeah. Stephen Semple: Yeah. Number 2, sell ads, banner ads, and number 3, license search results to other search engines. Dave Young: Okay. Stephen Semple: Based upon this plan, spring of ’99, they do a Series A fundraise. They raised more money, and they also meet Omid [inaudible 00:18:22] who’s from Netscape, and he’s kind of done with Netscape because Netscape had been just bought by AOL, and they recruit him as a chief revenue officer. Omid tries to sell the enterprise model, kind of fails, so things are not looking good on the revenue front. It’s year 2000, and the technology bubble is starting to burst. The customer base is still growing because people love it, love Google, but they’re running out of money again. They decide to do banner ads, because they just have got no money. Here’s the interesting thing is, in this day, 2000, I want you to think about this, you have to set up a sales force to go out and sell banner ads to agencies, people picking up the phone and walking into offices, reaching out to ad agencies. Dave Young: Yeah, didn’t have a platform for buying and selling… And banner ads, gosh, they were never… Google ads, in the most recent memory, are always context-related, right? Stephen Semple: Yes. Dave Young: But if you’re just selling banner ads to an agency, you might be looking for dog food and you’re going to see car ads and you’re going to see ads for high-tech servers and all kinds of things that don’t have anything to do with what you’re looking for. Stephen Semple: That’s how the early banner ads work. Hold that thought. You’re always one step ahead of me, Dave. Dave Young: Oh, sorry. Stephen Semple: Hold that thought. No, this is awesome. Dave Young: I’m holding it. Stephen Semple: What I want to stress is, when we talk about how the world has changed, in 2000, Google decides to do banner ads and how they have to do it is a sales force going out, reaching out to agencies, and agencies faxed in the banner ads. Dave Young: Okay. Yeah, sure. It would take too long for them- Stephen Semple: I’m not making this up. This is how much the world has changed in 25 years. Dave Young: “Fax me the banner.” Stephen Semple: Salespeople going out to sell ads to agencies for banners on Google where the insertions were sent back by fax. Dave Young: For the people under 20 listening to us, a fax machine- Stephen Semple: Who don’t even know what the hell a fax machine is, yeah. Dave Young: A fax machine, yeah, well, we won’t go there. Stephen Semple: Yeah. Now, here’s what they do. They also say to the advertisers at this point, “Google will only accept text for banner ads for speed.” Again, they start with the model of CPM, cost per a thousand views, which is basically how all the agencies were doing it, but they did do a twist on it. They sold around this idea of intent that the ads were showing keyword-based and they were the first to do that. What they did is they did a test to prove this. This was really cool. They set themselves up as an Amazon affiliate and dynamically generated a link on a book search and served up an ad, an affiliate ad, and they’re able to show they were able to sell a whole pile of books. The test proved the idea worked. And then what they did is they went out and they white-labeled this for others. For example, Yahoo did it, and it would show on the bottom of Yahoo, “Powered by Google.” But here’s the thing, as soon as you start saying, “Powered by Google,” what are you doing? You’re creating share of voice. Share of voice, right? Dave Young: Well, yeah, why don’t I just go to Google? Stephen Semple: Why don’t I just go to Google? Look, we had saw this a few years earlier when Hotmail was launched by Microsoft where you would get this email and go, “Powered by Hotmail,” and you’d be like, “What’s this Hotmail thing?” Suddenly, everybody was getting Hotmail accounts, right? Dave Young: Yeah. Stephen Semple: No one has a Hotmail account, no longer they have Gmail accounts, they hardly have Gmail accounts anymore. Dave Young: No, I could tell you that we’ve got a lot of people at Wizard Academy that email us off with a Hotmail. Stephen Semple: Still have Hotmail accounts? Dave Young: Sure. Stephen Semple: Oh, wow. So it’s still around? Okay. Dave Young: And then some Yahoos, yeah. Stephen Semple: Wow, that’s amazing. That’s amazing. Well, still- Dave Young: Yahoo, the email, not the customer. They’re not a Yahoo, but they have an account there. Stephen Semple: In October 2000, they launch AdWords with a test of 350 advertisers. And then, in 2002, they launched pay-per-click Advertising. And then 2004, they go public. Now, here’s one of the other things I want to talk about in terms of share of voice. They had a couple things going on with share of voice. They had that, “powered by Google,” which created share of voice because… We often think of share of voice as being just advertising in terms of how much are people knowing about us. I remember knowing nothing about Google and then learning about Google when Google went public because Google dragged out going public. They talked about it for a long time, but it meant it was financial press, it was front page news. It got a lot of PR and a lot of press around the time that they went public. That going public for them also created massive share of voice because there was suddenly a whole community that were not technologically savvy that we’re now suddenly aware of, “Oh, there’s this Google thing.” Dave Young: And they’re in the news, yeah. So I’ve got an idea for us, Steve. Stephen Semple: Yep, okay. Dave Young: All right. Stephen Semple: Let’s hear it. Dave Young: Let’s pick up part 2 of Google at the point they go public. Stephen Semple: All right, let’s do that. That’ll be an episode we’ll do in the future, yeah. Dave Young: We don’t do very many two-parters, but we’re already kind of a lengthy Empire Builder Podcast here. Stephen Semple: Oh, yeah. I was just taking it to this point, but I think that would be very interesting- Dave Young: Oh, okay. Stephen Semple: … because look, Google is a massive force in the world today- Dave Young: Unbelievable, yeah. Stephen Semple: … and I think it would be interesting to do the next part because there’s all sorts of things that they did to continue this path of attracting eyeballs. Dave Young: We haven’t even touched on Gmail yet. No, we have not. We have not. Stephen Semple: Because that happened after they went public. Correct. Let’s do that. Dave Young: Okay. Stephen Semple: Here’s the lesson that I think that I want people to understand is share of voice comes from other things, but we’re going to explore that even more in this part 2. I like the idea of doing this part 2. They really looked at this problem from a completely different set of eyeballs, and this is where I commend Google, from the standpoint of there’s all this stuff in the internet and what we really want to know is who is the authority. They looked at the academic world for how does it establish authority, and how authority is established is how much is your work cited by others, how much are other… So, now, Google has of course expanded that to direct search and there’s all these other things, but they’ve always looked at it from the standpoint of, “Who in this space has the most authority? Who is really and truly the expert on this topic? We’re going to try to figure that out and serve that up.” Dave Young: Yeah. Stephen Semple: That’s core to what their objective has been. Dave Young: We could talk about Google for four or five episodes probably. Stephen Semple: We may, but we know we’re going to do one more. Dave Young: All right. Stephen Semple: Awesome. Dave Young: Well, thanks for bringing it up. We did mention their name. Actually, if we just put this out there, “Hey, Google, why don’t you send us all the talking points we need for part 2?” There, I put it out there. Let me know how that works. Stephen Semple: My email’s about to get just slammed. All right. Thanks, David. Dave Young: You won’t know it’s from them though. You won’t know. You won’t know. Isn’t that good? Stephen Semple: That’s true. That’s true. Dave Young: Thank you, Stephen. Stephen Semple: All right. Thanks, David. Dave Young: Thanks for listening to the podcast. Please share us, subscribe on your favorite podcast app, and leave us a big, fat, juicy five-star rating and review at Apple Podcasts. And if you’d like to schedule your own 90-minute Empire Building session, you can do it at empirebuildingprogram.com.

Episode Description - Join host Marv for an in-depth conversation with Sam Sethi, entrepreneur, former tech journalist, and co-creator of True Fans. Discover the evolution of podcasting technology, the future of RSS feeds, and how blockchain-based micropayments could revolutionize creator monetization. Sam shares insights from his 30+ year journey through tech giants like Microsoft, Netscape, and BBC, and explains why podcasting 2.0 might be the industry's biggest shift since iTunes.  Key Topics Covered - Podcasting 2.0 & The New Namespace Sam explains the revolutionary metadata tags transforming podcast discovery and functionality, from person tags and chapters to location-based podcast mapping. Learn how open-source collaboration is challenging Big Tech's dominance.  The Future of Podcast Monetization Discover programmable money and value-for-value models that could replace traditional advertising. Sam reveals how listeners can earn micropayments for their attention while giving creators direct revenue streams. Streaming vs. Downloads: The Coming Shift Why the podcast industry's obsession with download numbers is outdated, and how first-party listen time data will revolutionize advertising effectiveness and creator insights.  AI in Podcasting: Hype vs. Reality Sam's take on "assisted intelligence" - where AI transcripts and automated chapters add value, and where synthetic voices fall short of authentic creator-listener relationships.  Timestamps - [00:00] Introduction and Sam's tech journalism background [02:00] From army officer to Microsoft: Sam's unconventional career path [04:00] The early days of blogging and TechCrunch Europe [05:00] COVID pivot: Building a radio station and discovering podcasting [06:00] Launching Pod News Weekly Review with James Cridland [07:00] Getting involved with Podcasting 2.0 and building True Fans [08:00] Apple finally adopts transcripts and chapters - validation for the namespace [10:00] Location tags and the future of podcast discovery [12:00] Why Sam loves technology over advertising metrics [14:00] The Spotify-Netflix deal and protecting niche podcasting [15:00] Advertising as "Emperor's new clothes" - the measurement problem [17:00] Revolutionary concept: Paying listeners to watch ads with programmable money [20:00] Value-for-value and streaming micropayments explained [22:00] Co-listening feature and building podcast communities [26:00] The Pod News Weekly dynamic: British humor and rapport [28:00] Moving from downloads to streaming: The next five years [30:00] Why listen time percentage matters more than raw numbers [33:00] The death of the download model and rise of streaming data [36:00] BBC Sounds international availability debate [40:00] The Panorama editing scandal and BBC's reputation [42:00] What makes a great podcast: Content, chemistry, and audio quality [45:00] Parasocial relationships and podcast magic [46:00] Claire Waite Brown's "Podcasting 2.0 in Practice" - essential listening [47:00] Concerns about declining podcasting 2.0 content creators [51:00] Sam's podcast listening habits: Politics, sports, and intelligent conversation [53:00] AI as "assisted intelligence" not artificial intelligence [54:00] AI voices vs. authentic creator relationships [56:00] Different AI podcast models: Editorial control vs. content farms [58:00] How to connect with Sam and True Fans  Key Quotes - "I think micropayments and wallets might take a little longer, but I can see in 2026  that catching on as well... the merit of what the technology provides and why people want it stands out very well."  "The joy and the promise of podcasting is about the long tail, about the niche of  podcasting... somebody who's got a niche podcast about fishing or knitting or  whatever, can still have an audience."  "I think advertising is the Emperor's new clothes. I think it's a scam... Who heard my ad? Oh, we can't tell you. How long did they listen to my ad? I don't know."  "The download isn't irrelevant, but actual listen time is a real metric. And so I think  in 2026, 2027, you'll see more and more people tell you what their listen time is not their download numbers."  Resources Mentioned - People & Podcasts  ● James Cridland - Pod News Weekly Review co-host  ● Adam Curry - Podcasting pioneer, Podcasting 2.0 namespace creator  ● Dave Jones - Podcasting 2.0 co-creator  ● Claire Waite - "Podcasting 2.0 in Practice" podcast  ● Elsie Escobar - Former host of The Feed  ● Kara Swisher - Pivot podcast  ● Emily Maitlis - The News Agents, The Rest is Politics Platforms & Tools  ● True Fans - Sam's podcasting app and hosting platform  ● Fountain - Podcasting 2.0 app  ● Pod Verse - Podcasting 2.0 app  ● Buzzsprout - Podcast hosting with AI features  ● Zencaster - Recording platform  ● 11 Labs - AI voice generation  ● Wonder Craft - AI audio production Companies & Technologies  ● Podcasting 2.0 namespace  ● Value-for-value model  ● Booster Gram Ball  ● Lightning Network micropayments  ● BBC Sounds   Articles & Concepts - ● Kevin Kelly's "1,000 True Fans" essay  ● Micro formats and micro data  ● Premium RSS feeds  ● Value time splits (wallet switching)  ● Timed links in transcripts   Connect with Sam Sethi - ● Email: sam@truefans.fm  ● LinkedIn: Sam Sethi  ● Listen: Pod News Weekly Review  ● Listen: Creators from True Fans  ● Platform: truefans.fm  ● Mastodon: Active  SEO Keywords -  podcasting 2.0, podcast monetization, RSS feeds, micropayments, value for value podcasting, podcast analytics, listen time metrics, streaming podcasts, podcast advertising, AI in podcasting, podcast transcripts, podcast chapters, True Fans app, podcasting namespace, blockchain podcasting, creator economy, independent podcasters, podcast technology, podcast discovery, niche podcasting  About the Guest - Sam Sethi is a tech entrepreneur and former journalist with over 30 years of industry experience. He's worked with Microsoft, Netscape, BBC, and TechCrunch, and currently serves as co-creator of True Fans and co-host of Pod News Weekly Review. Sam is deeply involved in the Podcasting 2.0 movement, developing innovative solutions for podcast monetization and listener engagement through blockchain-based micropayments and enhanced RSS metadata.  For more episodes of Pods Like Us, visit themarzone.org or find us on your favorite podcast platform. Support the show on Patreon.

professorjrod@gmail.comExplore the pivotal moment in technology education as we trace the origins of the internet browser from Mosaic's innovation at NCSA to Netscape Navigator's rise as the gateway to the web. This episode dives deep into internet history, highlighting the major players like Jim Clark and Marc Andreessen who shaped the early web experience. We also analyze the browser wars triggered by Microsoft's Internet Explorer, illustrating challenges in technology development and competition. Whether you're preparing for your CompTIA exam or passionate about tech exam prep, understanding this history enriches your IT skills development and offers valuable context for technology education.I walk through the tactics that made Navigator beloved—progressive rendering, rapid updates, and the birth of JavaScript—and the strategic choices that slowed it down, like the all-in-one Communicator suite. We unpack the bundling play that tilted distribution, the developer headaches of competing nonstandard features, and the DOJ antitrust case that redefined how we think about platform power. The twists don't end there: AOL buys Netscape, adoption fades, and then a bold move changes the web again—open sourcing the code to create Mozilla.From Gecko to Phoenix to Firefox, we trace how community-driven software brought speed, security, and standards back to center stage. That lineage lives in every tab you open today, from Firefox to Chrome to Safari, and in the modern idea of the browser as a platform for apps, SaaS, and daily life. Along the way, I share classroom plans, student podcast previews, and a practical way educators can keep learners engaged over winter break.If you love origin stories, tech strategy, or just remember the thrill of that big N on a beige PC, this one's for you. Listen, subscribe, and share your first browser memory with us—was it Navigator, IE, or something else? And if this journey brought back the dial-up feels, leave a review and pass it on.Support the showArt By Sarah/DesmondMusic by Joakim KarudLittle chacha ProductionsJuan Rodriguez can be reached atTikTok @ProfessorJrodProfessorJRod@gmail.com@Prof_JRodInstagram ProfessorJRod

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Stephen Parr and Louis R. Avallone. This is the full show for December 17, 2025. 0:30 Breaking news out of Washington: FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino is set to leave the Bureau early next year — and while this isn’t a scandal, it is a moment worth watching. Bongino’s short tenure at the FBI raises real questions about leadership, culture, and whether outspoken media figures can thrive inside a process-heavy federal agency. We dive into why Bongino may be better suited for influence behind a microphone than inside the bureaucracy, what his exit signals for FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi, and how recent FBI wins and missteps factor into the bigger picture. 9:00 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. President Trump has ordered a Naval blockade of Venezuela. Four Republican broke from their party to force a house vote on extending Democrat designed subsidies for the Democrat designed Affordable Care Act. Republican Congressman Dan Newhouse is not seeking reelection to Congress next year. 11:30 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 12:00 A new YouGov poll exposes a sharp political divide on immigration — and the numbers are hard to ignore. Only 17 percent of Democrats say legal immigration should be reduced, compared to 66 percent of Republicans who want it cut back or ended altogether. We dig into what those numbers really mean, the difference between legal and illegal immigration, and why border enforcement has become a breaking point even for many Democrats after the Biden administration’s failures. 15:00 American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson take on the controversy surrounding Trump Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and her decision to sit down with Vanity Fair — and why many conservatives see it as a major miscalculation. We break down how a year-long interview turned into headline-grabbing quotes about Trump, JD Vance, and the White House inner circle, how off-the-record trust was allegedly weaponized, and why legacy media outlets are viewed as hostile territory for Republicans. The Mamas also unpack media bias, selective framing, and the broader lesson about walking into the “lion’s den” of left-leaning press — even when you think you’re being careful. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 22:00 We dive into reports of new plaques placed beneath presidential portraits in the White House — and the controversy they’ve sparked. Do these bronze plaques represent historical record or political trolling? And where the line is between blunt truth-telling and misuse of taxpayer dollars? We discuss President Trump’s unapologetic style, the difference between opinion and history, and whether America’s obsession with politeness has replaced honest evaluation of past presidents. 25:30 We Dig Deep into the nation’s largest teachers union after reports that the NEA is promoting so-called “neo-pronouns” and “zeo-pronouns” in teacher training sessions. This isn’t education reform — it’s ideological activism replacing basic grammar, clarity, and classroom priorities. We question why unions are focusing on made-up language and identity politics instead of improving student outcomes, and warning that redefining words isn’t about communication but control. 31:00 Get TrimROX from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 31:30 We break down President Trump's prime-time address, and it's a deliberate moment of leadership where he plans to highlight his administration’s accomplishments and preview what he calls America’s “golden age.” Speaking directly to the nation on major networks still matters, even in an era dominated by social media. 34:00 And we have a Bright Spot from Florida, where the state can now enforce a ban on sexually explicit drag performances in front of minors. It's a long-overdue correction, and should never have been treated as protected speech when children were involved. We break down court battle that led to the decision, the narrow exception that still exists, and the broader cultural fight over bringing adult performance art into kids’ spaces like libraries and classrooms. This isn’t about censoring adults, it's about drawing a clear line between free speech and exposing children to sexualized content — a line that should have never been blurred in the first place. 38:30 In Texas, Republican Senate candidate Wesley Hunt is pushing a proposal to block education benefits for illegal immigrants — a move that's long overdue. With millions of illegal immigrants already in the country, full deportation isn’t realistic. Self-deportation was always part of the strategy. By cutting off benefits like public education, families will choose to leave on their own. It's a tough, controversial approach — but one that finally confronts why illegal immigration persists in the first place. 40:30 And we finish off today’s show with a little tech history that quietly reshaped the modern world. On this day in 1994, Netscape Navigator 1.0 hit the market and opened the door for everyday people to actually use the internet. Long before Chrome, Safari, or Firefox, Netscape was how the web worked — the browser that made surfing possible and set the standard for everything that followed. Follow us: americangroundradio.com Facebook: facebook.com / AmericanGroundRadio Instagram: instagram.com/americangroundradioSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

professorjrod@gmail.comIn this episode of Technology Tap: CompTIA Study Guide, we explore the fascinating evolution of technology from the launch of Sputnik in 1957 to the ubiquitous smartphones of today. Discover how early innovations like ARPANET laid the groundwork for the internet, shaping the landscape of technology education and IT skills development. Whether you're part of a study group preparing for your CompTIA exam or seeking expert IT certification tips, this episode provides valuable insights into the origins of the digital world and how it influences modern tech exam prep. Join us as we connect the dots between history and today's technology challenges to help you succeed in your IT certification journey.We start with Licklider's prophetic vision and the leap from circuit switching to packet switching that made failure-tolerant networks possible. Email gives the net its first social heartbeat. TCP/IP stitches islands into one internet. Tim Berners-Lee's simple stack—HTML, HTTP, URLs—opens the door for everyone. The home dial-up era arrives, and the browser becomes the interface of daily curiosity. Mosaic and Netscape ignite innovation; Microsoft's bundling forces a reckoning; Mozilla and later Chrome reshape standards and speed for the modern era.The dot‑com bubble teaches hard lessons, but Google's PageRank reframes the problem: organize the world's information with relevance, not clutter. Broadband and Wi‑Fi make the net always on, enabling streaming, online gaming, and richer apps. Napster breaks open music, litigation clamps down, and then paid streaming wins on convenience. Social networks shift the center of gravity from pages to people; YouTube turns everyone into a publisher and archivist. E‑commerce perfects logistics, and smartphones put it all in your hand. The cloud becomes the engine behind Netflix, Uber, TikTok, and the systems that silently scale our daily tools.We confront the dark side, too: ransomware, botnets, data breaches, and insecure IoT devices that expand the attack surface. Algorithms now shape what we see and believe, while fiber backbones and 5G push speed and density to new highs. AI becomes the thinking layer of the internet, interpreting, recommending, and generating content at scale. A rising push for decentralization—blockchains, IPFS, self-sovereign identity—seeks to return control to users and reduce dependence on gatekeepers. Where does it all go from here? From ambient computing to satellite constellations and new interfaces, the net may soon fade into the background—omnipresent and invisible.If you enjoyed this deep dive, follow the show, share it with a friend who loves tech history, and leave a quick review so more curious listeners can find us. Your support helps us keep exploring the stories that built our digital world.Support the showArt By Sarah/DesmondMusic by Joakim KarudLittle chacha ProductionsJuan Rodriguez can be reached atTikTok @ProfessorJrodProfessorJRod@gmail.com@Prof_JRodInstagram ProfessorJRod

Dagens ämnen: 0:00 Intro 5:08 Eutelsat 13:51 SpaceX 16:05 WeSport 18:01 QCLS 21:23 Warner Bros. 26:32 AI 28:26 Krypto 35:44 Fed och index 38:46 Positioner 40:30 Intervju med @DanielAAren och @Mark_M_Holmgren från @savr! 1:03:00 Veckans Fill or Kill www.instagram.com/fillorkillpodden   Tack RoboMarkets! http://gorobo.pro/2aue    @RoboMarketsSE    Tack Virtune! www.virtune.com  

Ruslan Belkin (Head of Platform Engineering @ Inflection AI) joins us to deconstruct fundamental shifts in engineering leadership. We explore the future of user interfaces, his “sci-fi” approach to establish & test product vision, & how to leverage “investor decks” for better decision-making and project validation. Ruslan also dives into the complexities of building emotional intelligence into AI systems, cultivating an outcome-oriented engineering culture & avoiding process traps. Plus, we discuss how to keep up with the velocity of change (including when new research necessitates a major pivot), synthetic data & the future of data as a defensibility strategy, & why agent reliability is the massive opportunity ahead. ABOUT RUSLAN BELKINRuslan Belkin joined Inflection after co-founding Jelled.ai—acquired by Inflection in 2024—and previously served as CTO of Nauto. Earlier in his career, Ruslan held senior engineering roles at Twitter, LinkedIn, Netscape, and other pioneering Silicon-Valley companies, bringing more than two decades of experience at the intersection of data platforms and machine learning. SHOW NOTES:How leading engineering teams is evolving: Moving from code as the source of truth to specs/documentation as the source of truth (2:44)Why an eng org's good hygiene / health will create better output (5:12)A framework for product vision: Envisioning the future "viscerally" like a sci-fi novel, stress-testing assumptions, and focusing smart people on the problem (9:04)Hiring in the modern era: Why software engineering is becoming "tooling and data engineering" and the importance of hiring for openness to new research (18:20)Gen Z vs. Millennial engineers: Ruslan's observation that Gen Z is more outcome-oriented and has a lower tolerance for "corporate euphemisms." (22:24)Ruslan's favorite frameworks for effective decision making: Using an "investment deck" to validate projects, avoid disbelief and lack of focus. (25:19)Keeping up with the velocity of change: How to curate research inputs and determine when a new paper (like DeepSeek) requires a strategic pivot. (32:57)The new burden of leadership: Why the velocity of AI requires leaders to be "right more often" and how to use models to increase research rigor. (36:27)The "Data Wall" and Synthetic Data: Why we have hit the wall for text data and how synthetic data generation loops will drive the next wave of defensibility. (41:35)The "March of 9s": Analyzing the trajectory of the AI market and why increasing agent reliability is the massive opportunity ahead. (46:25)Rapid fire questions (48:18) LINKS AND RESOURCESRuslan's Talk at ELC Annual 2025The War of Art - Steven Pressfield's guide to inspire and support those who struggle to express their creativity. Pressfield believes that “resistance” is the greatest enemy, and he offers many unique and helpful ways to overcome it.A Brief History of Intelligence: Evolution, AI, and the Five Breakthroughs That Made Our Brains - Artificial intelligence entrepreneur Max Bennett chronicles the five “breakthroughs” in the evolution of human intelligence and reveals what brains of the past can tell us about the AI of tomorrow. This episode wouldn't have been possible without the help of our incredible production team:Patrick Gallagher - Producer & Co-HostJerry Li - Co-HostNoah Olberding - Associate Producer, Audio & Video Editor https://www.linkedin.com/in/noah-olberding/Dan Overheim - Audio Engineer, Dan's also an avid 3D printer - https://www.bnd3d.com/Ellie Coggins Angus - Copywriter, Check out her other work at https://elliecoggins.com/about/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Marketing Meeting is back! In her return to the podcast after a brief layoff, Itir is joined by Marty Neumeyer, to discuss the core principles of branding. Marty is the branding expert who famously said, "Your brand isn't what you say it is. It's what they say it is." Marty and Itir dissect common misconceptions about branding, emphasizing that a brand is fundamentally the customer's perception, rather than a logo or product. Marty explains how to start branding with a targeted niche audience and the importance of aligning a company's purpose beyond mere profit. They also cover the distinction between branding and marketing, noting how branding is a long-term strategy while marketing tends to be short-term and tactical. Marty shares insights on how companies can stay original in the AI era. Last but not least, they discuss Marty's exciting new novel, Octavo, and the intriguing design and formatting choices he made to set the book apart from the pack. Marty started as a graphic designer and copywriter in the 1970s. In 1984, when the Macintosh launched, he moved to Silicon Valley to help companies like Apple, Netscape, HP, Adobe, and Google build their brands. In 1996 he started Critique, the first magazine about design thinking. He then launched Neutron, a design think tank focused on brand-building processes that drive organizational change. He later merged Neutron with Liquid Agency. As Director of CEO Branding at Liquid, he consults with leaders and executives of some of the world's most exciting companies, while writing and speaking on the topics of business strategy, design, and innovation. He takes his coffee at home in Mexico. Watch the full episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/iloWbgN8_VE Learn more about Marty's newest book, Octavo: https://www.amazon.com/Octavo-Novel-Marty-Neumeier-ebook/dp/B0DRLNPGZJ Connect with Marty Neumeier on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinindig If you have any questions about brands and marketing, connect with the host of this channel, Itir Eraslan, on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/itireraslan/

The Dot-Com Bubble looked like a disaster—but this video shows how the 1990s Internet boom and the 2000 crash (Netscape, Pets.com, Amazon) built today's web through massive fiber-optic overbuild and hard-won lessons. Invest in yourself today: https://www.alux.app We put together a FREE Reading List of the 100 Books that helped us get rich: https://www.alux.com/100books

From Netscape to VMware, Raghu Raghuram has been at the center of nearly every major inflection point in enterprise technology.In this episode, Raghu joins Ben Horowitz, Martin Casado and David George to reflect on the early internet wars with Microsoft, how Netscape's browser battles shaped a generation of founders, and the inside story of one of the most successful tech acquisitions in history, VMware's $1.3B purchase of Nicira, which redefined modern networking and grew into a multi-billion-dollar business.They discuss how VMware scaled from tens of millions to over $13 billion in revenue, what it took to outlast the cloud revolution, and why AI is now triggering the biggest infrastructure reset since virtualization. Raghu shares his vision for the next decade — from data-center robotics and energy-aware compute to how AI is reshaping both startups and giants alike. Resources:Follow Raghu on X: https://x.com/RaghuRaghuramFollow Ben on X: https://x.com/bhorowitzFollow Martin on X: https://x.com/martin_casadoFollow David on X: https://x.com/DavidGeorge83 Stay Updated: If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to like, subscribe, and share with your friends!Find a16z on X: https://x.com/a16zFind a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16zListen to the a16z Podcast on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5bC65RDvs3oxnLyqqvkUYXListen to the a16z Podcast on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a16z-podcast/id842818711Follow our host: https://x.com/eriktorenbergPlease note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures Stay Updated:Find a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Podcast on SpotifyListen to the a16z Podcast on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Belgian surrealist René Magritte was a smart artist, but could the 20th century futurist really have predicted the end of the Worldwide Web age? Not exactly, of course. But according to That Was The Week publisher, Keith Teare, Magritte's 1929 painting, “The Treachery of Images” (featuring the image of a pipe with the immortal words “Ceci n'est pas une pipe”), is a helpful way of thinking about OpenAI's introduction this week of their new Atlas “browser”. It's not really a browser in the conventional way that we think about web browsers like Chrome, Firefox or Internet Explorer. And yet AI products like Atlas are about to once again revolutionize how we use the internet. They might even represent the end of the web age with its link architecture and advertising economics. So do we have words for what comes next? The not-a-browser age, perhaps. L'ère sans navigateur, to be exact. * The Browser Is Becoming an Agent, Not a Link Map - For thirty years, browsers like Netscape, Internet Explorer, and Chrome were rendering engines for HTML that displayed blue links to web pages. AI products like ChatGPT's Atlas and Google's AI mode in Chrome are transforming browsers into conversational agents that answer questions, summarize content, and even execute tasks like booking flights—pushing the traditional web “down a level” in the user interface hierarchy.* The Web's Trillion-Dollar Advertising Model Must “Reprice Fast” - The web's business model has been largely advertising-based, built on users clicking links that generate revenue. As AI interfaces replace link-based browsing, this nearly trillion-dollar annual revenue stream faces an existential threat. Publishers like Keith Teare and platforms like Google must figure out how to transition their economics to an AI-driven world where links aren't surfaced by default.* Google Deserves Its Stock Price for “Being Brave in Undermining Its Own Business Model” - While AI threatens to upend Google's AdWords cash cow, the company's stock has surged roughly 50% over the past year. Keith argues Google has earned this bullishness by aggressively investing in AI infrastructure (like Anthropic's $10 billion commitment to Google's TPUs) and integrating AI features into Chrome—even though these moves could cannibalize its core search advertising business.* The “Victim Here Is the Publisher, Not the User” - Keith acknowledges that while the shift to AI agents feels like “an absolute change of paradigm,” it's genuinely better for users who get more intuitive, conversational interfaces. Publishers and content creators are the ones facing disruption, as AI may eliminate their distribution channels without yet providing alternatives for reaching audiences or monetizing content. The challenge is that “most of the narrative that doesn't like it is publisher-centric.”* Tim Wu and Antitrust Regulators Are “Fighting Yesterday's War” - Columbia law professor Tim Wu's new book The Age of Extraction focuses on the monopolistic dangers of Google, Amazon, and Facebook—but Keith argues this framing is already obsolete. The real competitive battlefield is AI, where Google is a “laggard” behind OpenAI and Anthropic. The underlying internet architecture (TCP/IP) remains neutral enough to allow challengers to emerge, making heavy-handed government intervention both unnecessary and potentially innovation-killing, as seen in the over-regulated EU.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Performance pressure and role fatigue often make leaders shrink back. If you fear being “too much,” this episode shows how recalibration restores peace — so your full presence becomes a gift, not a burden.Have you ever held back an idea in a meeting, softened your words so they wouldn't sound “too passionate,” or dimmed your presence because you didn't want to overwhelm others? For many high-capacity humans, the fear of being “too much” quietly shapes their leadership and their life.In this episode of The Recalibration, Julie Holly unpacks why leaders shrink themselves — and how to break free. Through personal reflection on a lifetime of feeling self-conscious about her energy, and the cultural story of Marc Andreessen, who was criticized as brash and “too much” in the early internet era yet went on to shape Netscape and Andreessen Horowitz, Julie reframes what “too much” really means.From an Identity-Level Recalibration (ILR) lens, this fear usually comes from outdated roles: the Pleaser, who thinks it's safer to stay small than risk disapproval; the Peacekeeper, who confuses harmony with suppression; and the Perfectionist, who edits presence until it feels unthreatening. Neuroscience names this pattern social safety bias — the brain exaggerates the risk of rejection, so shrinking feels like safety. But what feels safe in the moment becomes suffocating over time.Here's the truth: You are not too much. You are exactly the right size for your assignment. ILR restores this identity, retraining your nervous system to hold presence without apology. Without recalibration, presence feels like performance. With recalibration, presence feels like peace.This episode is for every leader who feels role fatigue, decision fatigue, or the emptiness of success without fulfillment. It's not another mindset tactic or productivity hack — it's the root-level recalibration that makes every other tool effective.Today's Micro Recalibration:Where am I shrinking myself?What would it look like to bring my full presence without apology?How might my leadership create permission for others to expand?If this episode gave you language you've been missing, please rate and review the show so more high-capacity humans can find it. Explore Identity-Level Recalibration→ Follow Julie Holly on LinkedIn for more recalibration insights → Schedule a conversation with Julie to see if The Recalibration is a fit for you → Download the Misalignment Audit → Subscribe to the weekly newsletter → Join the waitlist for the next Recalibration cohort This isn't therapy. This isn't coaching. This is identity recalibration — and it changes everything.

In the 1980s, before Internet marketing had even really begun, our very special guest today and returning champion was working as a tech writer in the foreign exchange trading department of Bankers Trust in New York. In his new book “How The Web Won,The Inside Story of How a Motley Crew of Outsiders Hijacked the Information Superhighway and Struck a Blow for Human Freedom,” Ken McCarthy writes: “Working with foreign exchange traders taught me an important lesson about the need for speed in business: Windows of opportunity open and close fast. That understanding, combined with my ‘discovery' of the rudiments of direct marketing, has been worth millions to me and a whole lot more to my clients.” That's one of the many powerful lessons from Ken's new book, “How The Web Won.” He's been around Internet marketing longer than anyone else I know–and possibly longer than anyone, period. In 1994, he sponsored the first conference about the business potential of the World Wide Web. With keynote speaker Marc Andreeson, at the time, the 23-year old co-founder of Netscape, an early Internet browser and the first important one. Time magazine pointed out that Ken was the first person to identify the importance and business power of the click-through rate, which today, of course, is the basis of the roughly half-a-trillion-dollars a year Facebook and Google make selling pay per click advertising. In 2002, Ken started an event called The System Seminar, which I attended a few years later myself. Met Frank Kern, Gary Halbert, Harlan Kilstein, and a whole bunch of other people who were, or became, legends in direct marketing. We could spend the rest of the show talking about all of Ken's accomplishments, but I'd rather he tell you about his book, “How The Web Won.” So Ken, welcome, and congrats on your new book! 1. So in 1993, you attended a conference called One BBS CON. I'm not sure from your book if that was the moment that changed your life, since you'd been doing some pretty good pulling rabbits out of hats with direct marketing before then. But could you talk about if that was an inflection point and how what you learned at that conference influenced you going forward? 2. Could you talk about being invited to Dan Kennedy's conference in 1993? I can't imagine a lot of the hard core direct marketers who paid $5000 to be there were all that receptive at that time to what you had to say. Were they? 3. Until 1989, it was forbidden by the U.S. government to use the Internet for commercial purposes. How fast did that change in the 90s, and what were the key moments for that? How did your San Francisco conference fit into all of that? 4. When did Internet marketing as we know it today really start to get traction? 5. What would you say was the big mistake made by many of the companies that went bankrupt in the dot-bomb of 2000 – and how long did it take for the direct marketing way of thinking take to catch on? 6. What prompted you to launchThe System seminar in 2002? 7. Any other key moments between the early days and today, that you'd like to talk about? Ken's book, How The Web Won https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DM2GN91Q HowtheWebWon.com Get in touch with Ken at: https://kenmccarthy.com Download.

In this episode of Bitcoin for Corporations, host Pierre Rochard is joined by Mike Belshe, CEO of BitGo. Mike shares his journey from Netscape and Google to pioneering Bitcoin custody solutions. They discuss the evolution of multi-sig, fiduciary duty, cold storage, and how institutions protect billions in Bitcoin. Belshe explains why proof of reserves and market structure matter for Bitcoin's future. This is a must-watch for anyone serious about Bitcoin security.

What happens when a startup becomes a giant—and then has to reinvent itself all over again?In this episode, Martin Casado sits down with Raghu Raghuram (former CEO of VMware) and Jeetu Patel (President and CPO at Cisco) for a deep, tactical conversation on scaling, disruption, and navigating transformation from the inside. They share hard-won lessons from leading two of the most iconic infrastructure companies in tech—through waves like virtualization, cloud, containers, and now AI.They cover:How to keep innovation alive inside large companiesWhy the best companies operate with a founder's mindset, even without foundersThe difference between selling to buyers vs. practitionersWhy the story is the strategy, and how to tell it at scaleHow Cisco is rebuilding its startup DNA in the age of AIIf you're building or leading through a major tech wave, this episode is a playbook. Timecodes:0:00 Introduction 2:02 Weapons of Mass Disruption: Abstractions, Business Models, and Cloud  5:57 Cisco's Missed Cloud Wave & Resetting for Innovation  6:39 Operating Like a Startup: Speed, Scale, and Leadership  10:00 Go-to-Market Challenges: Fencing Off Innovation  11:04 Organic vs. Inorganic Growth: Lessons from VMware  12:04 The 10x Rule and Competing with Incumbents  14:39 Structuring for Disruption: Two-Pizza Teams and Ideal Customer Profiles  18:43 Storytelling as Strategy: Galvanizing Large Organizations  19:42 The AI Wave: Consumerization and Infrastructure Demands  25:34 Founders vs. Operators: Leading Transformations  31:47 Product-Led Organizations: From Sales to Product Focus  34:35 The Future of Infrastructure: AI, Market Size, and Vertical Integration  39:34 Timing, Market, Team, Product, Brand, and Scale  41:19 Authenticity, Opportunity, and Final Thoughts   Resources:Find Martin on X: https://x.com/martin_casadoFind Raghu on X: https://x.com/raghuraghuramFind Jeetu on X: https://x.com/jpatel41 Stay Updated: Let us know what you think: https://ratethispodcast.com/a16zFind a16z on Twitter: https://twitter.com/a16zFind a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16zSubscribe on your favorite podcast app: https://a16z.simplecast.com/Follow our host: https://x.com/eriktorenbergPlease note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures.