Podcasts about Netscape

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.

Dive into the thrilling "Netscape moment" of quantum computing in this exciting episode of the Qubit Value podcast as the hosts unpack Quantinuum's meteoric rise and massive projected $15 to $20 billion valuation. The discussion explores how institutional capital is shifting from the AI boom into foundational quantum technology, largely driven by Quantinuum's revolutionary Helios system, which shattered industry expectations by achieving a staggering 2-to-1 physical-to-logical qubit ratio. From the ingenious switch to Barium-137 ions and visible green lasers to high-stakes partnerships with heavyweights like BMW, Amgen, and Nvidia, the episode breaks down how these real-world advancements are actively reshaping material science, biological research, and AI training. Fasten your seatbelts as the hosts race toward the future, mapping out upcoming commercial milestones like the Sol and Apollo systems, and delivering a stark warning about the fast-approaching timeline for breaking classical cryptography. Want to hear more? Send a message to Qubit Value

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 this event, Kent Walker, President of Global Affairs for Google, discusses the importance of Ireland as a digital economy hub in Europe and the role of the digital economy in ensuring Ireland's future prosperity. Mr Walker also discusses how Ireland can harness its upcoming presidency of the Council of the EU, starting in July 2026, to push for the measures that are needed to unleash Europe's digital competitiveness and to secure Europe's digital resilience. In his remarks, Mr Walker examines the debate about Europe's regulatory framework, the growing role of AI, and how to ensure Europe's resilience against digital threats. This event is organised as a collaboration between the IIEA and Google. Kent Walker is President of Global Affairs at Google and Alphabet, overseeing content policy, government and regulatory affairs, and legal, risk, and compliance matters. With a 30+ year career at the intersection of technology, law, and policy, he has led Google's advocacy on key issues and served as the first chair of the Global Internet Forum to Combat Terrorism. A Harvard and Stanford Law graduate, Kent was previously an Assistant U.S. Attorney and held executive positions at Netscape, AOL, and eBay. He serves on TechNet's executive committee and the Council on Foreign Relations.

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.

Warum Trumps Interesse an Grönland weder auf Rohstoffe noch auf die Nähe zu Russland zurückzuführen ist.Ein Kommentar von Claudia Töpper.Grönlands Eis dient als Schutz vor AufständenIn einem Interview, das vor vier Tagen auf YouTube erschien, nannte der Wirtschaftsexperte, Ernst Wolff interessante Hintergründe zu den geplanten Eroberungen der USA. (1) Wörtlich sagte er:„[…] Aber Grönland hat meiner Meinung nach auch einen Hintergrund, von dem überhaupt nicht geredet wird. Also in Grönland haben in den letzten Jahren investiert die ganz Großen in dem IT-Bereich. Also das sind Peter Thiel [Mitbegründer von PayPal und Palantir] hat da investiert, Bill Gates hat da investiert und Herr Andreessen [Mitbegründer von Netscape] und Larry Ellison [Gründer von Oracle] und all die Großen haben da investiert und das ist für die ganz interessant – Grönland – und zwar aus mehreren Gründen. Also diese leben ja alle von dem Fortschreiten der KI. KI ist ja im Moment die wichtigste Technologie, die entwickelt wird und KI braucht unglaublich viel Datenzentren. Nun baut man diese Datenzentren überall auf der Erde. Diese Datenzentren brauchen eine große Kühlung. Wo ist es am kühlsten? In der Antarktis. Und wo wären diese Datenzentren auch am sichersten gegenüber Sabotageakten und gegenüber der Gesamtbevölkerung der Welt? Auch in der Antarktis. Weil, da käme kein Mensch mehr hin, um da Sabotage zu verüben. Das wäre also eine abgeschlossene Welt für sich, wo die Datenzentren in Hülle und Fülle hinstellen könnten und die digitale Diktatur der Welt weiter vorbereiten könnten. Interessant ist, wer hat Donald Trump die Idee gegeben, überhaupt die Eingliederung Grönlands in das US-Staatsgebiet mal zu verlangen oder überhaupt zu beabsichtigen? Das war ein Mann namens Ronald Lauder. Mit [ihm] hat Donald Trump zusammen studiert. Ronald Lauder ist der Erbe des Estée Lauder Kosmetikkonzerns, also ein mehrfacher Milliardär. Und der Mann hat ihn auf die Idee gebracht, hat selber da auch schon investiert und jetzt kommt der Brückenschlag zum Nahen Osten, Ronald Lauder ist niemand anderes als der Chef und der Präsident des jüdischen Weltkongresses.“ (2)Des Weiteren ist für Donald Trump an Grönland noch folgendes interessant. „[…] Er [Trump] wird aus dem Hintergrund gedrängt von den Leuten, denen er ja dient. Also er ist ja nichts anderes als die Marionette der Großen im Silicon Valley. Also man weiß ja auch seine Adjutanten. Also sein Vizepräsident, J.D. Vance ist von Peter Thiel gefördert worden. Sein Außenminister, Marco Rubio ist von Larry Ellison gefördert worden. Die beide[n] sind von ihren Förderern zu Senatoren, einmal in Ohio und einmal in Florida gemacht worden, bevor sie den Sprung in die Regierung dann geschafft haben. Also es ist diese Fraktion da aus dem Silicon Valley, die Donald Trump in diese Richtung [Erpressung Grönlands und Dänemarks] drängen. Und die haben vor, da in Grönland tatsächlich etwas Besonderes zu errichten, nämlich das, was sie die Freedom City nennen. Das ist so eine Art Sonderwirtschaftszone. Da wird es keine Steuern geben, da wird es auch keine Regierung geben, da wird es auch keine Wahlen geben. Da werden die Konzerne selber herrschen. Das ist so das Idealbild dessen, wie sich vor allem Peter Thiel die Zukunft vorstellt.“ (3)Grüne Energie ist am EndeDass die KI die Technologie ist, auf die alle Konzerne ihre Zukunft aufbauen und ihren Blick richten, zeigen auch die Äußerungen, die auf dem WEF (World Economic Forum / Weltwirtschaftsforum), das letzte Woche in Davos stattfand, getätigt wurden. Hier erklärte der neue WEF-Chef und CEO von BlackRock (mit 4 Billionen US-Dollar der größte Vermögensverwalter), Larry Fink die deutsche Energiewende offenbar für beendet. Laut des Journalisten und Moderators, Robert Stein, erklärte Larry Fink in seiner Rede auf dem WEF, dass Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

À première vue, on se demande ce qui pourrait bien freiner OpenAI. L'entreprise à l'origine de ChatGPT enchaîne les partenariats prestigieux avec les géants de la tech et séduit désormais bien au-delà de la Silicon Valley. Dernier exemple en date : Disney, qui vient de signer un accord stratégique avec OpenAI. Un partenariat qui permettra à l'outil vidéo Sora d'utiliser des personnages iconiques de la marque, de Mickey Mouse à tout l'univers Disney. Dans la foulée, le groupe américain s'est engagé à investir un milliard de dollars dans le capital d'OpenAI.Une somme impressionnante… mais qui paraît presque dérisoire au regard des finances de l'entreprise dirigée par Sam Altman. Car OpenAI dépense énormément, et même de plus en plus vite. La course à l'intelligence artificielle est devenue un champ de bataille industriel où chaque avancée technologique se paie au prix fort, en puissance de calcul, en infrastructures et en talents. Selon plusieurs estimations relayées par le média Mashable, ce milliard de dollars fraîchement injecté ne suffirait à couvrir que trois à quatre semaines des pertes actuelles d'OpenAI. Une donnée vertigineuse, qui prend encore plus de relief lorsqu'on la compare aux engagements globaux de l'entreprise : cette somme représenterait à peine un millième des dépenses prévues à moyen terme.Autrement dit, OpenAI brûle du cash à un rythme rarement vu dans l'histoire récente de la tech. Au point que certains analystes commencent à évoquer, à voix basse, un scénario longtemps jugé impensable : celui d'une fragilité financière, voire d'une faillite à long terme si le modèle économique ne se stabilise pas. Cette inquiétude intervient dans un contexte moins favorable qu'il n'y paraît. Ces derniers mois, un décrochage technologique a été observé entre ChatGPT et son principal concurrent, Gemini, développé par Google. Avec Gemini 3, le géant californien a repris une position de leader, laissant planer le doute sur la capacité d'OpenAI à conserver son avance initiale. L'histoire de la tech est riche de précédents. Être pionnier ne garantit pas le succès durable. Les plus anciens se souviennent de Netscape, premier navigateur web grand public, rapidement marginalisé par Internet Explorer à la fin des années 1990. Un rappel brutal que, dans ce secteur, l'innovation coûte cher… et que la domination n'est jamais acquise. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

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  

¿Qué tienen en común todos los multimillonarios que fundaron empresas tecnológicas como PayPal, Google, Facebook, eBay, Napster y Netscape? Todos ellos están buscando la fuente de la juventud, con la esperanza de extender la vida humana a 150 años o más… To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1235/29?v=20251111

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

วันนี้จะมาชวนคุยเรื่องราวของบริษัทที่เคยเป็น “ราชา” บนโลกอินเทอร์เน็ตยุคบุกเบิก บริษัทที่ชื่อว่า Netscape ซึ่งหลายท่านอาจจะไม่คุ้นชื่อนี้เท่าไหร่ในปัจจุบัน แต่เชื่อไหมครับว่า ถ้าไม่มีบริษัทนี้ โลกอินเทอร์เน็ตที่เราใช้กันอยู่ทุกวันนี้อาจจะไม่ได้เป็นแบบที่เราเห็น ลองนึกภาพเบราว์เซอร์ที่เราใช้กันอยู่ทุกวันนี้อย่าง Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Safari หรือ Microsoft Edge คงไม่มีใครไม่รู้จักใช่ไหมครับ โดยเฉพาะ Chrome ที่ครองตลาดส่วนใหญ่บนคอมพิวเตอร์และแล็ปท็อป แต่ย้อนกลับไปในช่วงเริ่มต้นของ World Wide Web ในยุค 90 มีชื่อหนึ่งที่โดดเด่นเป็นสง่า นั่นคือ Netscape Navigator แม้ว่ามันจะไม่ใช่เว็บเบราว์เซอร์ตัวแรกของโลก แต่ไม่นานหลังจากเปิดตัว มันก็กลายเป็นที่นิยมมากที่สุด และแทบทุกระบบปฏิบัติการสำหรับผู้ใช้งานทั่วไปก็มี Netscape ให้ใช้ ถ้าคุณเคยท่องอินเทอร์เน็ตช่วงกลางยุค 90s เป็นไปได้สูงมากว่าโปรแกรมนี้ คือประตูบานแรกที่คุณได้รู้จักกับ World Wide Web Netscape เติบโตอย่างรวดเร็ว มีสำนักงานใน 14 ประเทศ รายได้ต่อไตรมาสสูงถึง 120 ล้านดอลลาร์สหรัฐ ดูเหมือนไม่มีอะไรจะมาหยุดยั้งพลังขับเคลื่อนของ Netscape ในตลาดเว็บเบราว์เซอร์ได้เลย แต่ชีวิตก็เหมือนกับการลงทุน มีขึ้นก็ต้องมีลงครับ ไม่นานหลังเข้าสู่สหัสวรรษใหม่ ส่วนแบ่งการตลาดของ Netscape ก็ร่วงลงอย่างหนัก ด้วยการผงาดขึ้นมาของ Internet Explorer จาก Microsoft Netscape สูญเสียอิทธิพลที่เคยมีไปเกือบหมด และภายในปี 2003 บริษัทแม่ก็ต้องเลิกจ้างพนักงานส่วนใหญ่ และยุบเลิกบริษัทที่เราเคยรู้จัก วันนี้เราจะมาย้อนรอยดูกันว่าเกิดอะไรขึ้นกับ Netscape เราจะเดินทางกลับไปในยุค 1990 เพื่อทำความเข้าใจ “สงครามเบราว์เซอร์” และเรียนรู้เรื่องราวของการรุ่งโรจน์และการล่มสลายของ Netscape เลือกฟังกันได้เลยนะครับ อย่าลืมกด Follow ติดตาม PodCast ช่อง Geek Forever's Podcast ของผมกันด้วยนะครับ #Netscape #NetscapeNavigator #สงครามเบราว์เซอร์ #BrowserWars #Microsoft #InternetExplorer #ประวัติศาสตร์อินเทอร์เน็ต #TechHistory #ยุค90 #Mozilla #Firefox #Mosaic #JavaScript #AOL #BillGates #ซิลิคอนแวลลีย์ #เรื่องเล่าธุรกิจ #นวัตกรรม #เทคโนโลยี #geekstory #geekforeverpodcast

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.

Join us as we recap and chat about Bob's Burgers Season 9 Episode 11 Lorenzo's Oil? No, Linda's and Season 9 Episode 12 The Helen HuntDid you know Gene calls the netsuke "Netscape."  Linda calls it "Netflixy," "nutsky," "neti-potski," "netsadoodle," "netslinky," "Napster," and "Nescafe."?Wiki page for the episode:Lorenzo's Oil? No, Linda'sThe Helen HuntJoin our Book Club and get access to exclusive content on PatreonFollow us on InstagramFollow us on TiktokFollow us on Bluesky

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.

It's kind of funny when I think about it—throughout my entire career, I've taught people how to use tools. Tech tools, communication tools, leadership frameworks, sales systems—you name it. And while the tools keep evolving arp speed, the way I teach them hasn't changed a bit. I teach people, not platforms. I bring a human-first approach to everything I do. Whether it's helping someone close a sale, lead a team, or troubleshoot a network issue, I instill a deep sense of humanity into the process. Because it's never really about the tool—it's about the person using it.That's been true for the last 20 years. And it will be even more important in the next 20.The world has changed a lot since I first dialed into the internet using a modem, taught others how to use Netscape, or delivered top-secret messages while serving in the Navy. And it'll keep changing faster than ever. But one thing hasn't changed—and won't: People still crave real connection, clear communication, and contagious energy that lifts them up.So what's next?I've spent the last few decades teaching, selling, leading, speaking, writing, coaching, and creating. Now, I'm setting my sights on the next 20 years with a clear mission, a bold vision, and a whole bunch of momentum.

Today's topic on the Neil Rogers show is computers. Hear about clock speeds, 486 vs Pentium, Packard Bell, Netscape, and more. There was a Gilbert sighting.

What does it take to build startups that last and come back for more? In this episode, Amir sits down with Russ Fradin, serial founder, longtime investor, and now CEO of Larridn. With nearly 30 years of experience and billions raised across multiple ventures, Russ shares what he's learned about founding companies, hiring the right people, navigating pivots, and representing other people's money with integrity. This isn't a highlight reel. It's a grounded, real-world look at what actually makes a great founder.Key Takeaways• Great founders haven't changed. The barriers to entry have• The best ideas evolve constantly. Early-stage success is about the team• Founding with the right people creates longevity and joy in the journey• Angel investors are betting on judgment, not just ideas• Fulfillment comes from building with people you respect and admireTimestamped Highlights00:53 Why Russ and his co-founder launched Larridn to reimagine productivity in the age of AI03:48 Lessons from 29 years of company building, from pre-Netscape to today05:36 How the startup world has changed and what hasn't since the 90s12:06 What makes the journey worthwhile even when startups fail14:56 How Russ chose the right co-founders and why it still matters most17:52 Knowing which idea to chase and when to pivot with purpose21:24 What representing other people's money really means to him as a founder and angel investorQuote of the Episode“There's just nothing better you can do with your time than go to work every day trying to build something amazing with amazing people.”Pro TipsWhen choosing your next venture, ask: where do I have unfair advantage? It's not just about solving a big problem. It's about solving the one you're uniquely qualified to tackle.Call to ActionEnjoyed this episode? Share it with a founder or investor in your circle. Subscribe to The Tech Trek for more conversations with leaders who've done the work and are still doing it. Follow Amir on LinkedIn for more insights and episode drops.

On this TechMagic episode, hosts Cathy Hackl and Lee Kebler welcome Jeff Shardell, founder and CEO of Humble Brands, to hear about his journey from leading at Google to redefining sustainability in the CPG world. Jeff shares how his tech background shaped his approach to eco-friendly product design, scaling consumer goods, and building an authentic celebrity partnership with Jason Momoa. Cathy and Lee also dive into cutting-edge mixed reality news, from ByteDance's lightweight Pico headset to Oakley's NASA visor collaboration. Plus, how Gen Z's gaming habits are reshaping career paths. With updates on AI's impact on gaming jobs and Roblox's new adult dating features, this episode bridges the worlds of innovation, sustainability, and immersive tech. The hosts also preview what's coming in Season 3 after their summer break.Come for the Tech, stay for the Magic!Jeff Shardell BioJeff Shardell is the CEO and Founder of Humble Brands, a sustainable personal care company known for its natural deodorants and eco-friendly packaging. With a distinguished background in tech leadership, including roles at Google during its early growth phase and Netscape, Jeff leveraged his experience scaling companies to revolutionize the CPG (Consumer Packaged Goods) industry. He co-founded gloss.com, which was later acquired by Estée Lauder, before launching Humble Brands with a mission to create better-for-you personal care products while reducing environmental impact.Jeff Shardell on LinkedInKey Discussion Topics:00:00 Intro and Welcome Back, Cathy04:15 Music, AI and the Future of Live Entertainment13:12 AI's Impact on Gaming: Candy Crush Layoffs & Industry Changes29:18 Jeff Shardell: From Google Executive to Humble Brands Founder35:00 Building Authentic Celebrity Partnerships in CPG40:23 Sustainable Innovation: Beyond Plastic Packaging51:35 ByteDance's New Mixed Reality Hardware & Industry Trends56:20 Space Tech: Oakley's NASA Visor Collaboration01:00:31 Gen Z Gaming Skills Becoming Career Opportunities01:07:08 Season Wrap-up & Summer Break Announcement Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eric Yuan turned a simple belief into Zoom, the platform that kept the world moving through a once-in-a-century shutdown and redefined modern work. On this episode of Grit, the Zoom CEO shares why velocity beats size, how a family-first ethos powered his leadership during COVID, and why the coming wave of AI dwarfs the original internet boom. He details how he's refreshing Zoom's culture for 7,500 people, opting for virtual deal calls over in person meetings, settling into life as an empty-nester, and keeping Zoom nimble enough to outpace Big Tech and the next wave of AI startups.Guest: Eric S. Yuan, Founder & CEO of ZoomChapters: 00:00 Trailer00:44 Introduction01:47 Walking with swagger03:48 Extremely exciting moment10:05 Classic innovators' dilemma12:59 Laser-focused bandwidth17:56 Family first: lead by example22:09 Everybody was doing their road shows25:34 The entire world was dependent28:04 Community care31:57 Valuation and a co-founder35:17 A lot of unhappy days39:25 Building Zoom for consumers46:57 Holograms?52:01 Home53:23 Huge competition, high velocity1:00:33 Where companies get wrong1:04:52 Giving back1:13:12 Who Zoom is hiring1:13:24 What “grit” means to Eric1:14:24 OutroMentioned in this episode: Webex by Cisco, Glean, Apple, HP, Netscape, Yahoo, Brian Armstrong, Emilie Choi, Coinbase, New Limit, Elon Musk, Windy Hill, Magic Leap, Rony Abovitz, Jony Ive, OpenAI ChatGPT, Bill McDermott, ServiceNow, Carl EschenbachLinks:Connect with EricXLinkedInConnect with JoubinXLinkedInEmail: grit@kleinerperkins.comLearn more about Kleiner Perkins

Marc Andreessen is an entrepreneur, investor, co-creator of Mosaic, co-founder of Netscape, and co-founder of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep458-sc See below for timestamps, transcript, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc. Transcript: https://lexfridman.com/marc-andreessen-2-transcript CONTACT LEX: Feedback - give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey AMA - submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama Hiring - join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring Other - other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact EPISODE LINKS: Marc's X: https://x.com/pmarca Marc's Substack: https://pmarca.substack.com Marc's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@a16z Andreessen Horowitz: https://a16z.com SPONSORS: To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts: Encord: AI tooling for annotation & data management. Go to https://encord.com/lex GitHub: Developer platform and AI code editor. Go to https://gh.io/copilot Notion: Note-taking and team collaboration. Go to https://notion.com/lex Shopify: Sell stuff online. Go to https://shopify.com/lex LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix. Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex OUTLINE: (00:00) - Introduction (12:46) - Best possible future (22:09) - History of Western Civilization (31:28) - Trump in 2025 (39:09) - TDS in tech (51:56) - Preference falsification (1:07:52) - Self-censorship (1:22:55) - Censorship (1:31:34) - Jon Stewart (1:34:20) - Mark Zuckerberg on Joe Rogan (1:43:09) - Government pressure (1:53:57) - Nature of power (2:06:45) - Journalism (2:12:20) - Bill Ackman (2:17:17) - Trump administration (2:24:56) - DOGE (2:38:48) - H1B and immigration (3:16:42) - Little tech (3:29:02) - AI race (3:37:52) - X (3:41:24) - Yann LeCun (3:44:59) - Andrew Huberman (3:46:30) - Success (3:49:26) - God and humanity PODCAST LINKS: - Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast - Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr - Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 - RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ - Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4 - Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson sits down with entrepreneur and software pioneer, Marc Andreessen. They discuss the timeline of the woke institutional takeover, the ruinous effects it has had on Western ideology and business, the ways in which AI will shape society, and the immense responsibility we have to instill the future with an ethos and morality that serves human flourishing. Marc Andreessen is a cofounder and general partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. He 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 highly influential Mosaic internet browser and co-founded Netscape, which later sold to AOL for $4.2 billion. He also co-founded Loudcloud, which as Opsware, sold to Hewlett-Packard for $1.6 billion. He later served on the board of Hewlett-Packard from 2008 to 2018. Marc holds a B.S. in computer science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Marc serves on the board of the following Andreessen Horowitz portfolio companies: Applied Intuition, Carta, Coinbase, Dialpad, Flow, Golden, Honor, OpenGov, Samsara, Simple Things, and TipTop Labs. He is also on the board of Meta. This episode was filmed on December 18th, 2024.  | Links | For Marc Andreessen: On X https://x.com/pmarca?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Substack https://pmarca.substack.com/ “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto” (Book) https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/