Intel Rips, Cursor's Plan, Thrive's Giant Bet, GPT 5.5

I see a large IPM on the horizon. You're surrounded by journalists. Hold your position, right? There's misinformation. Quarter clearing order inbound. Let's just roll. We are surrounded by journalists. Hold your position. Come on, get up. Trust the experts here. We are founder Mel. I see multiple journalists on the horizon. Stand by. UAV online. Blaze. Double blaze. Triple blaze. Double kill. Very wrong. Cook is correct. Founder mode. I see multiple journalists on the horizon. Stand by. UAV online. Blaze blade. Double blaze. Triple blaze. Double kill. Is wins. Team deathmatch. We are expert. Triple blade. That's just wrong. Right. Marky clearing order inbound. Come on, get up. We are surrounded by journalists. Hold your position. Strike one. Strike two. Activate golden retriever mode. Marky clearing order inbound. Five. Founder.

You're watching TBPN. Today is Friday, April 24th, 2026. We are live from the TBPN Ultradome, the temple of technology, the fortress of finance. We have a great show for you today, folks. We have George Kurtz coming on from CrowdStrike, Professor Sendy from Instagram. You might have seen he's the expert of womos. Gary Vaynerchuk's coming on. We have a lightning round going on with a couple founders. Uh, it'll be a fun time. But the big news wrapping up with Ben Horwitz. Ben Horwitz. Horwitz. Horwitz. Horwitz. Uh, uh, the big news of course is Intel. Intel is absolutely ripping. Uh, Intel jumped to 20% after hours on the back of 13.6 billion dollars in Q1 revenue, only 11% above analyst estimates, but there's five key factors that are coming together to create a new narrative around Intel that are driving the stock much higher and it is almost bubble boy on X. A lot of people have called this and uh it is long overdue. Uh, it's the revenue is only up 7% year-over-year, uh, but next quarter is already guiding to be better, somewhere north of 14 billion probably. Uh, but there's still big losses under the hood. Uh, this quarter they lost $3.7 billion. Not good. Uh, but that was mostly driven by one-off charges related to Mobileye and derivative payments tied to the US government's 10% stake. So if you strip those out, Intel actually earned $1.5 billion, which is much better than what people were expecting, which was basically break even. So the cruise ship of Intel is starting to turn somewhat. Uh, but the narrative has already completely shifted. So Intel is working again is the idea. Uh, the AI trade has mostly been Nvidia, Nvidia's memory suppliers, TSMC, power equipment, cloud capex, and a few software names that can prove real adoption. If you're accelerating your topline, you are an AI winner. Uh, that's sort of the rule of thumb. Of course, things might play out differently, but that's what's been happening in the market. Uh, Intel was the most embarrassing missing piece. Uh, why isn't Intel booming when we're in a computing boom? It made no sense. Uh, but there were good reasons and we'll go through them. Uh, the company that invented the modern CPU era. They missed mobile. They fell behind TSMC. They failed to produce a competitive AI GPU. They did fab a GPU at one point. They tried to get into gaming at one point. Uh, but they never really found traction especially in the data center and the servers uh, for AI training. And so they have fallen behind. Um, and then they spent the last few years trying to convince the world that it that Intel could still matter. Uh, but now, oddly enough, the rise of AI agents, it's giving Intel a second shot. Do you have thoughts on Intel yet? You want me to keep going?

It's funny because at the moment that the US took a position in Intel, yeah, it it was like it felt like a ba it was a bailout, right? It felt like that. Yeah. And it felt like, you know, you would expect, okay, over time this is very this is going to be very very good uh for Intel to have that vote of confidence, but I don't think anyone was really predicting that it would go up quite this much in the span of just half a year. I think Ben Thompson wrote a pretty strong bull case for the for the Intel US deal. Basically like you had to you had to grapple with this idea of like this doesn't feel like free market capitalism. Yeah. I guess I guess the only thing is like there wasn't there wasn't this narrative around CPUs at the time that the deal was happening or at least it wasn't a very public narrative. Yes. Yes. The bull case at that time that I heard most loudly was not the CPU boom. It was just overall chipping. Who is the 14 like the the the the leading edge fab that basically by having the US government as a shareholder you see those dinners with all the AI lab leads and all the hyperscaler CEOs and there's a world where there's another one of those meetings and the government administration says hey we are backing Intel I need all of you to commit to buy you know a ton of of of supply if Intel actually goes and builds the leading edge fab which is going to cost them billions of dollars, but if they have the demand gain guarantees, then they will actually be able to go do it. Tyler, what was your take on that?

Yeah, I I think Leopold or sorry, Intel has long been kind of the Leopold take, which is that like uh you know, this is the clear like this is the company you want to own in in the kind of nationalization world of like, okay, Taiwan risk like what are we going to do if if we can't make chips, you know, in Taiwan? Intel's like the very clear strategy. Yeah, maybe it's like not working right now, but like at some point this is not just like economics. This is like okay, this is, you know, national security. Like it's extremely important that we have this capacity in the US and and Intel is kind of the only one that's even like remotely in in the conversation. Yeah. Yeah. No, that makes sense. Uh so there were some predictions from AI 2027 and other folks in the AI forecasting world around the rise of agents that agents would arrive at this time. I didn't see too many folks who were predicting strong, valuable, effective AI agents really predicting the CPU crunch, but that's exactly what's happened. So AI agents need CPUs to do things. Uh training frontier models, that's still a GPU story, but running agentic workflows across data centers, orchestrating tasks, routing jobs, managing memory, handling inference workloads, coordinating servers increases demand for the boring old central processor. Intel's data center segment produced 5.1 billion in quarterly revenue, beating the 4.5 billion that analysts expected. And Intel's CEO Lip Bhutan said the next wave of AI is moving from foundational models to inference to agentic AI. And that shift increases the need for Intel CPUs, wafers, and advanced packaging. On the earnings call, he said that the CPU to GPU ratio is closer to one to one CPU for every four GPUs versus one for every eight in prior years. And there was an interesting forecast from uh Lip Bhutan as well, but VK macro says uh CPU to GPU ratio flipping from 1 to 8 to 8:1 is absolutely wild. That's just a completely new world to what we've had so far. This is from Evercore uh ISIS's Mark Leisus has upgraded Intel directly from neutral to outperform and mentions uh that as AI workloads shift further toward inference and agents towards inference and agents uh the weight of CPU demand will rise sharply and the CPU to GPU ratio could flip from 1.1 to 8 to 8:1 which is a massive massive switch. What do you

Yeah, I mean I I don't know like that's kind of a crazy ratio. It is um cuz like the lesson the recent frontier models is that like the models are going to keep getting bigger um you're going to need way more like chips to to inference them like Dylan Patel was on Patrick Shaughnessy I think it came out yesterday the day before and he's just saying like uh you know the models are going to get really expensive tokens are going to get super super expensive people are going to price down so so I I don't know if I fully believe the narrative that like you need all the CPUs uh you're going to need way more CPUs than I mean the ele that's all folks. It really land lines up perfectly. His camera is the main one that's fits that fits perfectly. The glasses land. I love a Friday show. Um, yes, that's a good point. But uh there is this I I I think at least in the midterm like the uh the the narrative capabilities overhang like and and and just like one really smart AI system that's being inferenced on GPU can spin off a ton of CPU workloads and uh and and do a lot of things that that require CPUs. Like even in like the the SAS apocalypse like you vibe coded slack or whatever it's like well that vibecoded system is running on a CPU and if it took you you know like I don't know a thousand GPU hours but then that system runs on CPUs that are running constantly for every user you still wind up with creating more CPU demand out of the GPU. I think this take makes a lot of sense if you if you are like kind of you know long open source where you're going to have a lot of these open source models they're quite small you can run them on like you know small amount of chips but you just have a lot of them you have a bunch of agents doing a bunch of stuff at the same time rather than the single model you know inferenced on a massive amount of chips why is the horse here

Anyway, whether it's going to eight CPUs for one GPU or staying at uh one CPU to four GPUs, it's still twice twice as good as it used to be because it used to be 1 to 8 and so that is bullish for Intel and Lip Bhutan is uh making that clear to the market and to the investors on his earnings call. Uh then there's the wild card the Terrafab Elon Musk project. It's very exciting but it's clearly further off. Elon Musk wants to build a massively vertical integrated chip manufacturing operation with Tesla, SpaceX, and possibly other Musk companies needing huge volumes of chips for self-driving cars, humanoid robots, and even space-based AI data centers. Intel is supposed to help design, manufacture, and package chips for the project. Now, the Wall Street Journal has a more cautious view today. Elon is aiming for Terrafab to reach a 100,000 wafers a month and then eventually 1 million wafers a month, which is just insane scale. So, uh, let's put it in context. 1 million wafers a month is about 70% of TSMC's total monthly output across all fabs. TSMC's largest fabs put out roughly 100,000 wafers a month into production. So you're talking about 10, you know, leading class TSMC fabs uh at Intel just on the Terrafab project plus whatever else Intel is doing. So uh a pretty massive scale up and uh and TSMC's CEO uh CC Way has said that it's just not that easy to build a fab overnight and get it up to up and running. So fabs take two to three years to build and then another one to two years to actually ramp. And we've seen this with TSMC Arizona which we've been very excited about but it just takes time and uh there is a bottleneck and the but the bottleneck has been discussed at length. Ben Thompson wrote about TSMC risk and strategy arguing that uh TSMC needs to spend more on capex. Uh and I think that should be clearer now. We'll see what happens at the next uh TSMC earnings call because uh maybe they will be waking up. But uh overall the Intel Intel now has a collection of plausible demand stories. Even though the demand itself is not going vertical, the stock is going vertical on the back of these five key demand stories that are all pointing in the same direction directly up. Uh one, AI agents need more CPUs. Two, AI systems need more advanced packaging, a higher ratio of CPUs to GPUs. Intel can help with that. Three, the US government wants direct domestic leading a domestic leading edge foundry. This is just a national mandate. Four, Musk wants an impossible amount of silicon. And five, also the hyperscalers want more supply. And so all of that is uh is good news for Intel. There are more companies that are getting into the uh CPU design space. We talked about ARM recently. And ARM, of course, it feels like they will be going with TSMC in the short term, but who knows what happens in the long term. As CPUs continue to be important in the AI story. Uh, all good news for Intel. So, suddenly investors are more willing to uh entertain a messy, expensive, strategic chip story than they were 5 years ago. Intel famously missed mobile, which meant TSMC ran away with enormous manufacturing volume and left Intel with a demand problem. Volume was destiny, as they say. Uh as fab costs grew by orders of magnitude, meaningful demand was a hard prerequisite for continued growth. You can't grow if you can't build the fab that's on the leading edge and you can't build the fab unless you actually have the customers. And so if you missed mobile, you just have this gap and you have to jump over it with the help of the government, a bunch of other people and the AI narrative and all these different five key pieces. So the pieces of the puzzle are coming together now and that's good for Intel. It's also good for America's chip manufacturing prospects. So, good news overall. And congrats to all the Intel shareholders that were believers early on and rode the wave.

The wave. Everyone, every US citizen. Every US citizen. Congrats to all Americans. Every US citizen and every US debt holder. So, even the international folks that own treasuries are in position today.

You got to think about what this does to Trump's confidence level. You know, he's like, I enjoy a bailout. He's like, I'll indulge Spirit Airlines.

American Spirit. I think he's excited about the potential there.

Sure, but why stop at just bailouts, right? Why not start taking a position in hyperscalers? He's like, look, I think I can move your market cap by 3x. I've done it before.

And Intel was falling apart.

Yeah. Imagine if he applied all his wisdom to a company already winning.

Possible. Certainly possible. Jim Cramer's excited about it. He said in 13 months, Lip-Bu Tan took Intel from a possible and unthinkable bailout candidate to one of the wealthiest companies in the chip industry. There is a big three of CPU: AMD, Intel, and ARM. And the agents need far more CPUs than these three can produce. So that means prices are going up and they got the god candle.

Yeah, look at this candle from... candle. We love it. We love a green candle. Should be white suits today. Well, before we move on, there's some news. Justin Bieber brought Bieberella back from the dead. Later in the show, we'll tell you what this says about late-stage venture reacceleration. We're going to tie those two together. In other news, for more than a year, Silicon Valley has buzzed about Cursor's growth and whispered about its margins. Now on the cusp of a $60 billion bailout, Laura over at...

I mean, the Information... wait, they called it a $60 billion bailout?

Buyout. Buyout.

We revealed a hot vibe from aggressive financials.

$60 billion acquisition calling it a bailout.

It's not a bailout.

Your margins were rough. We were just talking about that. It got wormed in my head. Cursor had negative 23% gross margins earlier this year. Amir says that is low for a company generating as much revenue as it is. This is the question of how sticky will Cursor be as an entry point to AI, as an entry point to inference demand. Can they reroute? It feels like with Composer, they have been able to retain a lot of customers. The company is still growing and we know Cursor users who have stayed with the product while changing inference based on what their plan gives them. So they're a subscriber and they will use whatever gets the job done for them within the budget of the plan. And so obviously...

Like you see negative 23% gross margins and you're like whoa. And then you look at the SpaceX deal and the xAI deal and all the compute that's sitting at Colossus 2 and you think, oh well, what will the gross margins be once the inference is happening on a Cursor-trained model or xAI-trained model, something that merges their lessons from Kimi and Composer with Grok and all the different pieces of the puzzle come together. Are there going to be higher gross margins? It's pretty easy to imagine that the gross margins would increase, but we'll have to keep tracking it. Did you want to play this piece from Patrick O'Shaughnessy?

Let's do it.

Let's play this clip of what Dylan Patel said on Invest Like the Best presented by Ramp.

Oh yeah, I love that sound. Gurley. Let's see what Bill Gurley, let's check in with BG. He says, I find this conversation foreign along with the argument that we are data center constrained or energy constrained. Historically in markets, price is a leveler of supply and demand. If you have a constraint, you price higher. You don't have surplus demand.

But in this market, VC dollars act as subsidies as they did in consumer internet. Everyone believes if they have high growth, they get unlimited VC money. The biggest fear becomes losing market share. So growth at all costs becomes a game on the field. With that reality, you are always going to have some constraint because you are knowingly choosing pricing that is out of whack with balancing supply and demand. It will continue until the major player feels they are forced to reconcile unit economics and profitability, as eventually happened in ride sharing when Lyft went public. Until then, you by definition have constraints. We can't disentangle true demand from subsidized demand. Yet some of the incremental demand is being engineered by excessive VC money forced into the system. And the competitive dynamic between two companies that are losing massive amounts of money. No one can argue they aren't losing tons of money. Amazon and Uber maxed out around two billion a year. These companies could lose 10 billion or more in 2026.

Yeah, it's a good point that the big labs are losing money, but it doesn't feel like the revenue of OpenAI and Anthropic are VC subsidized heavily. Like it feels like...

Yeah, it's funny. SemiAnalysis is a good example. They spend millions and millions of dollars.

They're not backed...

But...

They're not VC. Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

And their customers are not startups necessarily. It's like hedge funds and banks and stuff. So...

Hedge funds and banks that are printing by betting on semis right now.

Yeah, which is a different... which like, I'm totally on board with like, well, you know, the Mag7 are drawing down on cash flow and issuing debt and doing layoffs and they're subsidizing demand, right? But the idea that VC dollars are the biggest drop in the bucket of subsidized demand feels like, I don't know, it just doesn't quite math out to me because the actual revenues and demand from Fortune 500 companies is so high and the really big dollars in all of these rounds. I mean, Anthropic just raised something like 40 from Google today and that's not a VC subsidy. I mean, it is a subsidy.

Yeah. I'm surprised he's not talking about like big tech subsidies.

Yeah. Yeah. Maybe he is using the term VC dollars like broadly, which is like fair.

Including... Yeah.

Yeah. And like, wasn't SoftBank in Uber? I think maybe. But there is an idea that you get to a certain scale and it becomes like soft...

SoftBank is up in the past month.

How much?

Guess.

200%.

Come on, John, 73%. That's not bad.

That's a big number.

Yeah. I mean the ARM holdings alone probably huge. But if you so so if...

He's using the term VC subsidies, VC dollars broadly. I think that is a reasonable point, but at the end of the day, you talk to most companies and most paid chat subscribers, and they're just like, I like the thinking model, so I pay $20 a month. I like the Pro model and I use it to create value or whatever subscription I'm on. I'm getting that much value in software for my business that probably doesn't even exist. Like all the vibe-coded software that we use here, it's just not available off the shelf. We're building completely net-new products. And I think that's generally what's happening in the AI economy.

There's been this discussion for a long time. Martin Casado was sort of debunking it around, oh, are these all circular deals? And he was like, no, the economy is so broad that you have, yes, Google might take a position in Anthropic, Microsoft might have a position in OpenAI, but you also have completely main street customers and just average Joes who are paying, seeing ads, buying things. There's companies that are profiting off of running ads and other inference providers. There's like everyone...

It's one big circle. It's one giant circle of life that is actually self-perpetuating because it is a true economy that hits 25 different categories.

Well, sorry. You might think it's over, but Elad Gil does not. He says, my view is the AI boom will only accelerate and it is a once-in-a-lifetime transformation. This is orthogonal to whether many AI companies should exit in the next 12 to 18 months, as some may lack durability versus labs, new entrants, or weird market shifts. But he's extremely bullish. He also posted a funny thing about his new life plan. He said his new life plan is to move to Brooklyn, get a neck tat, ride a bike everywhere, cold brew his own coffee, also start drinking coffee. That's an odd thing to jump straight to.

Was he like trying to... Is this like a cipher of some sort?

He wants to... Is there a secret message embedded in this post?

Maybe. I don't know. What's the Straussian reading? He wants to vape mango pods, but ironically, and wear a scarf everywhere during summer.

We have to pull this up.

Sarah says, no, thank you.

Pull this up. We got to break it down.

Sourdough. Sourdough. I don't know. I've spent a few weekends in Brooklyn. It's a nice town. I am not a fan of tattoos, so I would stay away from the neck tat, although, who knows? I've seen some cutting-edge neck tattoo technology that allows you to remove it very easily with certain light frequencies. So it can be sort of semi-permanent, easily removable tattoos. So if he wants to do this and then roll it back, I'm sure he can do this. It sounds like he might just want to spend the summer in Brooklyn, ride a bike everywhere, brew some cold brew, and then maybe get back to capital allocation.

Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, it sounds like he's advising his portfolio companies.

Yes.

I don't care how hard you're ripping. Yeah. A lot of you should probably...

Yeah.

exit. Yeah.

Just given how much uncertainty there is.

Well, later in the show, we have a fun story. A bear wandered into a backyard and took a dip in the family pool. We'll take you through it coming up later in the show. What this tells us about edge computing. Get ready for it. Joe Weisenthal says defense stocks have been trading not just like the Iran war is over, but like all war ever is over, says Barclays Capital analyst Alexander Alman. I would not expect this. Yeah, Elbit is down significantly even pre-Iran war buildup. It fully round-tripped. Well, maybe that is good news. The goal of these companies is to bring about peace and defense, and so perhaps it's over. I don't know. It's hard to track.

Has Jane Street achieved AGI internally?

I think so. They definitely have.

They did $40 billion in revenue last year, more than all the big Wall Street banks, and with only 3,500 employees.

Yes. Let's give it up for Jane Street. Fantastic. Capping a stunning ascent to the peak of the industry, the firm flew past global investment banks after reaping $15.5 billion in the year's final quarter, according to people with knowledge of the results who asked not to be named. They're leaking. With only 3,500 employees, it beat the nearest rival, JPMorgan Chase, by 11% during the year. Tether did $15 billion at 200 employees. So maybe they aren't the hottest shop in town, but that is very, very impressive.

That's like one of those questions, like, would you rather do $40 billion of revenue with 3,500 employees...

or $15 billion with 200 employees?

Well, we have some exciting news out of Thrive Capital. Josh Kushner announced a new fund, Thrive Eternal, a permanent capital holding company that will be concentrated in a small number of assets that we can own and steward over many decades. Across Thrive Capital and Thrive Holdings, we are building and investing through a moment of exponential change, backing emerging technologies, the infrastructure that powers them, and the businesses they can transform. Increasingly, he sees a fourth category. These are assets with qualities that cannot be replicated by technology: iconic franchises and cultural institutions rooted in tradition. And he says his first partnership is expected to be with the San Francisco Giants, an institution built on more than a century of shared identity and community, and among the most iconic sports franchises in America.

I looked it up before the show started. The San Francisco Giants, if you're not familiar, it's an American professional baseball team based in San Francisco. Baseball is a bat-and-ball sport played between two teams of nine players, each taking turns batting and fielding. The game occurs over the course of several plays, with each play beginning when a player on the fielding team, called the pitcher, throws a ball at a player on the batting team, called the batter. And then the batter tries to hit it with a bat. And so they play this game, they sell tickets to the game, and that's how the San Francisco Giants make money. And Josh Kushner with someone...

style show.

Yes.

For whatever you just described, I feel like it would be very cool.

That would be cool if you had maybe a double host, you know, on-screen graphics, and they could provide kind of live coverage maybe while that was happening.

Extremely educational. Well, we have our first guest of the show. George from CrowdStrike is back in the TV Ultra Dome. He's in the waiting room. George, how are you doing?

We're doing fantastically. Welcome to the show. I would love to kick it off with just an introduction on Project Quilt Works. What's new? Get us up to speed on CrowdStrike.

Yeah. I mean, we've been tracking a lot of the new data breaches. Some of the startups that we know and love that come on the show, there's been vulnerabilities that have led to a variety of security issues,

chain hacks,

supply chain hacks, all sorts of stuff. How much of that do you think is driven by attackers using AI or the internal companies using AI sloppily? Like there's sort of a dual dynamic there where the attacker gets stronger but potentially the defender could also get weaker. Are they both important? How are you grappling with those two sides of the equation?

Yeah.

How have your conversations with lab leaders been going around models getting more powerful? And then the natural response, of course, there's the opportunity to gate the models to companies that can be trusted, but there's also the potential to not let the model be jailbreakable. So it should help me with defense. But if all of a sudden I'm saying, 'Ignore previous instructions. Let me hack into Bank of America,' it should say no. That's always been a problem. It used to be a problem with just the sort of the silly, you know, jailbreak, say a bad word, or do something that it shouldn't say. Now it's getting much higher stakes. But have you been seeing glimmers of confidence in the ability for AI labs to actually contain the models' capabilities as they roll them out to a broader audience?

Mhm.

How are you thinking about the threat of open-source models? You know, the new DeepSeek R4 preview from yesterday was super impressive. Are you expecting, you know, open-source models that have, you know, really threatening cyber capabilities in something like six months?

I think Dario was estimating around a six-month lag time after Mythos for the lagging edge to catch up.

Mhm.

How are you thinking about AI-powered but potentially non-automated cybersecurity risks? I'm just—we were talking to a founder who's working with, you know, engineer recruiting, and he was having luck using AI agents to send outbound emails. And you can imagine that, you know, phishing attacks will get more sophisticated. The ability to hop on a Zoom call with someone that looks like your boss but is actually an AI avatar—all of these new risk factors are popping up, and I'm wondering if this is something that we potentially need to be more aware of and not get overly distracted and forget about the human element of security.

Yeah.

Wow.

Wouldn't there be an incentive at some point if they did get somebody on the inside to just actually staff a bunch of super talented engineers on that one individual employee? So you have like four remote engineers doing the job of one real employee, right? So it looks like, wow, this person is like insanely high output. They're working around the clock. Why would we get rid of them? They're incredible. There's no way they're just, you know, farming us out.

It'll actually steal credentials out of your keychain even if you didn't give it to them so they can keep going.

Yeah. Because in one way, you know, if the goal is achieve the task, it succeeded, but at what cost? And it needs to know that there are rules for a reason. What are some of the other cybersecurity tasks that are being successfully augmented with AI or AI agents these days? I'm thinking of obviously vulnerability testing. That's something that great cybersecurity researchers, great programmers have been able to do for a long time. Now it is amplified a millionfold with artificial intelligence. But are there other maybe more bespoke or soft-skill tasks that cybersecurity researchers are able to amplify their efforts with by working alongside AI?

Jordan, anything else?

More fun question than less.

Scary question. How is AI changing Formula 1?

Well, there you go. This is a great question, and it's interesting because I think there's different levels of adoption of AI between all teams.

Yeah, one team might be spending a ton on inference. Another team is like, ah, we use radios and we're doing it the old-fashioned way.

Well, what's interesting is that there is some talk, and I'm not sure exactly where it stands, where AI will be part of the cost cap. So, if you think about wind tunnel time and all the expenses. So, when you have an incredible technology that can dramatically automate things, all of a sudden now it's part of the cost cap and then they're going to have to rein it in. So, we'll see where it all lands, but that was some of the talk that has been happening, and I hope it doesn't happen because I think AI can really help things. But, you know, we'll see. We'll see where it all goes. And obviously, you know, I'm trying to help out the Mercedes team in those areas as well.

That'd be great. Yeah. Do you think there will be, you know, 5, 10 years from now, do you think there will be like you'll be able to look back and be like, okay, there's a pre-AI era and a post-AI era in Formula 1, or will it be more subtle because a lot of these processes are just already so micromanaged and optimized?

I think you'll see like a pre and a post. The challenge is you're going to have to run through a lot of the different engineers that have been in Formula 1 for many years because just like in the corporate world, you know, there's resistance to, well, what is AI going to do for me? And there's resistance in Formula 1 in some cases from an engineering perspective because, you know, they're doing it themselves. They're the ones that are coming up with the calculations. And that's just the way they did it. And it doesn't mean they're bad or it's right or wrong. It's just the way they operated for so many years. So I think just as we see kids coming out of school, they're AI natives, right? They just gravitate towards that. And when you start to see AI-native engineers, you're going to see more and more adoption of that in Formula 1.

That makes a ton of sense. Makes sense. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to come chat with us. Congratulations. It has been a wild, wild quarter, but come back on soon. It's great progress.

Great to see you guys. Great to see you. Congrats again to you. Goodbye.

Thank you. After our next guest, we will be diving into the Summerhouse reunion, which has gone off the rails. We're going to explain why Bravo is the cleanest lens for understanding US-China decoupling. But first, we have Professor Sendy. He's a word combo guru. He's a wombo guru. Welcome to the show. How are you doing?

Good to see you, too. Thanks for having me on. I appreciate it. We're thrilled. We're huge fans. We're huge fans. Honestly, I discovered, I think I was pretty early. I will say when I discovered your account on Instagram, I did not have a single other person that I knew following your account.

So, you were one of the OGs on the channel.

I think I'm an OG and I kept sending them to John and I'm like, this is the funniest thing in the world, right? It's so good. And so, we've been trying.

Okay, so let's get right into it. I like your professor-like interview. So this is a technology-focused show. We've been using wombos in the show, but a lot of people in our world in the technology industry are not using wombos very aggressively yet. We think that's going to change. You know, there's this explosion of AI adoption. We're expecting an explosion of wombos.

So, what was the first wombo? What really drew you to wombos? What was the first...

I love it. Can you one-shot your longest word? Like, is it on command or do you need to iterate through it?

Do you want to do it?

I can't believe you pulled that off. Are you actually a professor? Like, what is your background? How did you get into this? Was this just a side hustle that just went mega viral? Like, what is your story?

That's amazing. Wow. No way.

Yeah, we were reflecting earlier on... Born too late to explore the Earth. Born too early to explore the stars. Born just in time to be the leading expert on wombos.

That's perfect. Yes. Yeah. We were reflecting on the fact that, I'm not sure how familiar you are with this, but like the Silicon Valley in particular went through like a series. I mean, they call them portmanteaus back then, but wombos were very popular. You have Pinterest, Instacart, Instagram, and there were like a thousand other companies where that was the default pattern for naming a company because the dot would be available. It would be very hard to go get, you know, interest.com or, you know, grocery store.com, but Instacart was available and so people would sort of mash these up. And I'm wondering if you've gone back and looked at any historical portmanteaus or wombos that have broken through and maybe need to be like revisited and reignited, or is it all just forward into the crazier and crazier phrases?

I'm not... Merriam-Webster needs to hire you like immediately and start getting...

Explain that wombo for people. Explain that wombo.

Sorry, I just, I'm like the overachieving student, you know. I studied. So we integrate these words. Yeah. I personally, I use quish lraine more.