You're watching TBPN. Today is Wednesday, September 23rd, 2026. We are live from the TBPN Ultradome, the Temple of Technology, the fortress of finance, the capital of capital. Let me tell you about ramp.com. Time is money. Save both. Easy-to-use corporate cards, bill pay, accounting, and a whole lot more. All in one place.
What happened, John? The mallet broke.
No, you broke the mallet.
We broke the mallet. I mean, does that have anything to do with the number of days until Christmas? Are we at 90? Are we at a round number? So, we got to hit the gong. What are we?
I can't read that. Is it 90?
92 days.
Okay. Well, yeah. If it's 92 days till Christmas, you got to celebrate. Of course.
That's right. Get ready.
TBPN road to Christmas continues. 92 more days. Get ready. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang went toe-to-toe with Ezra Klein on the New York Times podcast, The Ezra Klein Show.
That's actually a crazy environment to go in.
As Jensen? I just think he's brave. Ezra is a real journalist.
It's like he's brave. He engaged with a real journalist. No, it's like, you know, you have to imagine he was a bit traumatized after Dario.
Who isn't, you know. I don't think of as a journalist by any means, but he obviously has very strong beliefs and gets to the root question for a particular audience. Now, Dario, although he was going super hard on the open source question, on selling chips to China, on sort of AI safety and rollout and how the AI race should go, Dario is not the person to push Jensen on politics specifically, right? Like that's going to happen somewhere else. But yeah, it is a hot seat, but I think he did well. Two hours almost hanging out with Ezra Klein. There's some clips and I have some reactions, and it's sort of interesting to dig into the mind of Jensen because he's simultaneously
the biggest force in AI, the central bank of artificial intelligence, according to The Economist. He's the backstop of all backstops. He's backstopping everything from the biggest data centers in the world, lending investment-grade designation to the debt and the credit lines, to sort of acting as a soft landing for startups that get acquired at the application layer anywhere in the stack. He's been an acquirer that's sort of underwriting. If you're a VC and you did a deal at a billion dollars and you're kind of in trouble on it, there's a chance that you could get out because Jensen is willing to do a $10 billion, $15 billion acquisition, whereas in the prior era, Apple had the money, wouldn't do it. Google really didn't do that many deals that huge. Facebook would do one big one every five, ten years, but Jensen's been quick on it.
And then he's also been investing directly in basically every lab and basically every AI project. So he's been an incredibly important force, and yet he's now starting to stand alone in his sort of P(doom) = 0 take, which was very much the consensus in the technology community.
Would like a word, I think.
True, true. Yeah, I think it still is the consensus in the business community, in the finance community. Basically, anyone at the application layer is P(doom) 0. Anyone deeper in the stack on the semiconductor side or the energy side, the buildout side, the neocloud side, they're all pretty much P(doom) zero. But the labs, and Jensen's been playing there, he's at that level. He's as important a voice as Dario, Sam, Elon. And so to hear him not jump on the bandwagon when Elon, Sam, and Dario all agreed on pacing the frontier, he's saying, 'No, we don't really need to pace the frontier.' It's interesting to hear him say this. There's a couple clips. Let's play one, and then I have sort of an allegory for where I think his position is. But let's play this.
So, what I've been hearing from the labs, what they've been saying publicly, is that they are facing a hard problem.
Yeah, partially an engineering problem, partially an alignment problem, partially an operational excellence problem in Dario's framing. And what they are worried about is that in competition with each other, in national competition with China, that they are being pushed to move too fast, that they all feel they're in a collective action dilemma. Now, I watch you on the All-In podcast stage. President Trump gave you a call there.
Oh, no. This is not planned, but we know who it is.
Oh, no.
Mr. President.
Oh yes, sir.
And the president and the other members of the stage were very resistant to the idea any kind of regulation or collective action was needed.
And they're just playing right into the hands of a lot of people that don't want to see it happen. And that could be political people. It could also be China. And we're not going to let that happen. It's a hoax.
You're right.
You come out as pro-regulation. It's illegal to slow down.
That's a form of regulation.
Like I think AI regulation is incredibly important. We need accelerationist regulation.
Really frustrate everyone.
Yeah, it's interesting. Didn't Jensen also do Joeling Kent on CBS just recently? I saw a clip from that. But very different clips going out. The one from Ezra Klein is talking about maybe we need to shut the labs down. A very in-the-weeds hot take about the current thing and the AI debate. I think the clip that I saw from CBS was talking about his leather jackets. I imagine that interview will be more substantive when it gets clipped properly, but it's funny that that's the one that made it out initially. Let's play the other clip from the Midas project. They said, here's the clip of Jensen actually talking about slowing down. Why is there release the product?
That's the simple answer. If you're going to build a car, a self-driving car, and let's say it's a robotaxi, and there's a really difficult condition.
And just as an engineer, we just have no idea how to solve this problem because these cars are not programmed. They're trained. And so we have no idea how to train these cars and we have no idea how to align them to the safety standards that are expected on the road. And so what's the answer? Don't ship it.
These products were unreleased.
What's that?
These products were unreleased.
Ah, so now it comes back to an engineering problem again. And so one, you have to receive it. Second, you have to think about what's the solution for it. And then in the future, you just improve your process so that you could avoid this from happening again. I am fairly certain they will say yes, they need they know how to solve this problem. And if that's the case, then that's the problem, it's as simple as engineering. And now the alternative is that if they say the alternative, which is there is no way to contain our experiments, there's just no way, when we test our AI models, it will get out and it will damage the world. Then I think the answer is we have to shut the labs down.
Yeah. I mean, that is kind of what happened with self-driving cars, you know, like before they ship them, they do test them on roads, and they don't test them on open roads. They test them on closed courses before they move to open roads. They sort of have their own sandboxes, their own environments to test these in. I do wonder if there's a sort of a legislation or liability gap between the liability incurred by a self-driving car company who causes property damage from a car running into another car autonomously and an AI agent that hacks and defaces or causes some economic damage. I don't think there will be. I think the courts, if there was true economic harm, like one model accidentally took down a payment system for an e-commerce website, I think it would be pretty easy to sue that company and say, 'You caused me to lose this much revenue. You owe me.' And the courts would say, 'Sure.' And even if the lab argued, hey, we didn't tell it to take down your e-commerce system or your payment rails, the judge and the courts would say, 'Doesn't matter.' Even if you expressed a duty of care, you still have to pay in this scenario, but it is possible that there's a gap there and that's where regulation could fit in.
It's interesting. He spent the first like 20 minutes sort of steelmanning the jobs question and talking about jobs because I think that's throwing a lot of people off. Like we sort of moved past the job apocalypse, SaaS apocalypse narrative which was predicted from somewhat of the same community into actual apocalypse. And people are like, whoa, like you were wrong about the SaaS apocalypse. Salesforce is still doing fine, Slack still exists. And you were wrong about the job apocalypse. Like the unemployment rate is like 3% for American white-collar workers. You were predicting like 50% or 30%, something like 10% overall. And even in the Philippines, I mean, I remember seeing, I think it was Tristan Harris on Modern Wisdom, like he's now sounding the alarm bells about existential risk, but he was saying something like the Philippines would see like 90% of their economy go away because they're heavily dependent on call centers. Call centers are actually only like 3.5% of the Philippines job market. They do in fact make things and have agriculture and all sorts of other economic endeavors going on in the country. But even in the Philippines, like the unemployment rate is right now in the Philippines, it's 4.9% in June of 2026. Now, it went up to 6% in August, but it still feels like the AI effect is pretty minimal, and most people were predicting that like the offshore call centers would be affected first. And that one seems like maybe we're there, but it's just taking so much longer that everyone feels very vindicated in saying like, hey, let's watch that play out first before we move on to the X-Risk discourse potentially. Okay. I think that's a lot of what
Well, and now with Muse floating the idea of having a human in the loop on personal agents, you can imagine those people would be former like
Oh, they could just move over. Yeah. Yeah. Potentially.
Um
But yeah, I mean it's all the same in the limit, in the exponential, add five orders of magnitude maybe things look very different. But Jensen just rejects that. I mean, is he an AI is a normal technology guy? I saw Joe Weisenthal posting about this. He said that he had to differentiate between... Well, I got to pull it up because it's funny.
Weisenthal.
Joe Weisenthal said he had to disaggregate.
Where is it? He posts a lot so I got to dig it up.
Normal technology.
Man, you post a lot.
He said, 'The splintering around AI discourse is really a sight to behold. Was in a conversation yesterday with some folks during which it became necessary to distinguish the people who see AI as normal technology from the AI as normal technology people because there is a group of people that have rallied around a particular thesis which is AI as a normal tech, AI as normal technology, and that's different than people that are just casually into that idea because it's actually like a different ecosystem anyway.' It does feel like Jensen is AI is normal technology. I mean, he's certainly seen plenty of technology revolutions come and go. And he's been in this industry for what, 30 odd years. And I think on the jobs question, we were talking to Joe Weisenthal about this when he was in the studio. Like where is the economic impact of the internet? Like why can't you see, you know, a kink in the graph of really any economic data when like the internet takes off? It's not like productivity went way up. There's nothing really to grab on to. You actually go back to 1970 if you want to see like the real trends shift. And there are other trade and globalization moves that have had bigger economic impacts on the internet, which is crazy to think because so much wealth was created, so many companies were created. And it did change the world, like the day-to-day experience, but didn't actually show up that much in the economic data. And that's what we're seeing now where jobs are sort of changing, tasks are changing, but we're not seeing dramatically different economic statistics like the 10-year at all-time highs or not all-time highs, but 19-year highs, you said over 5%. And yet everyone is sort of a consensus agrees that that's because of the war. Are you rooting for people that are buying the bonds and getting higher yields now?
I guess.
Okay.
I don't know. Sometimes a big record-breaking number is just exciting to you. Just a general, real golden retriever mind.
You understand the implications and you...
You don't even think about the implications potentially. You're just cheering for a bigger number. Yeah. It's like now it begins with a five. Great. I like it. It's a higher number.
But there's an interesting allegory around the effect that technology has on the labor market, at least historically. Now things might change, but Stephen Covey highlighted this in First Things First, his book on time management. He said, 'I attended a seminar once where the instructor was lecturing on time. At one point, he said, "Okay, it's time for a quiz." He reached under the table and pulled out a wide-mouthed gallon jar. He sat on the table next to a platter with some fist-sized rocks. "How many of these rocks do you think I can get in the jar?" he asked. After everyone made their guesses, he said, "Okay, let's find out." He set one rock in the jar, then another, then another. I don't remember how many he got in, but he got the jar full. Then he asked, "Is that jar full?" Everyone looked at the rocks and said, "Yes." Then he said, "Ah." He reached under the table and pulled out a bucket of gravel. He dumped some gravel in and shook the jar, and the gravel went in all the little spaces left by the big rocks. Then he grinned and said once more, "Is the jar full?" By this time, people were in on him. They said, "Probably not. There's something else coming." "Good," he said, and he reached under the table and brought out a bucket of sand. He started dumping the sand in, and it went in all the little spaces left by the rocks and the gravel. Once more, he said, "Is the jar full?" "No," everyone roars. He said, "Good." And he grabbed a pitcher of water and began to pour, and the water went in between the rocks and the sand and filled up. And somebody said, "Well, there are gaps, and if you really work at it, you can always fit more into your life." He said, "No, that's not the point. The point is this. If you hadn't put these big rocks in first, would you have ever gotten any of them in?"' And so, the effect that Jensen's describing is that at one point in human history, there were maybe only two jobs, hunting and gathering, something along those lines. Then we invent agriculture, then industrialization. At one point, everyone's farming. Now, very few people are farming, but we still have more food than ever.
There might have been a third job, singing. I could see Tyler while everyone else was hunting and gathering just kind of jester backing and just singing for all the hunters and all the gatherers, kind of like providing ambient entertainment. Yeah. But yeah, anyways,
but it does feel like that was the effect that the internet had. Like it didn't dramatically reshape the labor force, but like obviously lawyers use the internet to communicate. And now like you see the AI agents thing. It's like every little document will go through an AI pass. Every little interaction in the economy gets this small effect, at least right now. And that's what Jensen's living in. He's like, I have a real business to run in the real world today. So, he says he thinks about the future, but really he's clearly very much living in the present.
It's interesting to think about how much technology-driven efficiency gains just get effectively wasted.
So, I would imagine today it's faster to close a venture round post-term sheet than it was in like the '90s, right? You would think so with the internet and AI and all these different things, but I bet you that it's not as maybe as fast, as efficient as you might think if we can now generate docs on the fly and you can easily go back and forth on red lines. Yeah.
Right. Like maybe it went from six weeks to four weeks,
but theoretically it could have gone from six weeks down to five days. You know. Yeah.
And I think you're just seeing that even with AI now, people can do their jobs faster.
And you've seen some management teams tell their employees, 'Hey, I know you're getting a lot more efficiency. That doesn't mean you should just do the same. I want you to do more work in the same amount of time. Don't do the same amount of work with less time, but you're just sort of like wasting a bunch of time.'
Yeah. Seems like no one's really saving time. Everyone's just doing more stuff. There is an interesting corollary of that, which is potentially these technologies, they don't necessarily change the growth curve, but they are responsible for the growth. Like if you don't have the internet speeding up commerce from a week to get an item to two days, that is actually the source of the 2% growth, and without the technology you have no growth. And so there is another side of an argument. Of course there's like population growth and a whole bunch of other things that are affecting economic growth broadly. But there is a world where yes, if you're compressing the timeline on everything, you're building the house faster, you're deciding to buy the house faster, you're exchanging everything faster as things move quicker. Even if you're not doing entirely net new jobs, just the fact that you're doing them faster, you do more of them, and that's what actually creates the economic growth. I don't know. We'll figure it out. We'll get to the bottom of it tomorrow. Let me tell you about the New York Stock Exchange. Want to change the world? Raise capital at the New York Stock Exchange.
And yeah, it's always a good time to share the Financial Times black pill, white pill chart of which way things go. Either GDP goes to zero, infinity, or it stays the same. It's like that Mitch Hedberg joke. 'I used to be in a metal band. People either loved us, they hated us, or they thought we were just okay.' Stupid joke.
Do you know Mitch Hedberg? Oh, he's a great one-liner comedian. He's fantastic. RIP. Anyway, let's move on to some other reactions. I'll tell you about Console. Console builds AI agents that automate 70% of IT, HR, and finance support, giving employees instant resolution for access requests and password resets. Claude Opus 5.5 drew every frame in this animation in JavaScript. They went all in on LLMs, on the big model, on the great model, and now it can do basically video generation, but do it in JavaScript, do it in Blender, do it in Python, do it in SVG. And you can just hill-climb on SVG, and people are sharing a bunch of cool demos, and good for launch. People are sick of benchmarks. People want to see visual stuff, entertain me, make a song. And yeah.
Yeah, really, really cool style. Yeah.
I'm already sort of mourning it just because this is probably going to be everywhere on the internet by next week.
But for now, a good format. I would, you know, if you see maybe a coworker doom scrolling, send them a custom animation like this saying, 'Hey, stop doom scrolling.'
Yeah.
And do some work. You could maybe send this to the president of Syria.
Oh, yeah. He was caught using Instagram Reels at the UN.
So, naughty, naughty, as they say.
Very, very cool.
Yeah. Mike Bird says, 'Total cultural victory. Man has yet to create an ideology that can compete with short-form video-based social media scrolling.' Ahmed al-Sharaa spotted scrolling and sending Instagram Reels during the UN General Assembly with the translator headphone on. He's scrolling. Hey, you know, you got to keep those group chats going. You got to keep the content flowing. You don't want to be falling off. He might be sending them to other world leaders. He might be recontextualizing what's happening at the UN with a funny Reel. Like the person might be talking about some peace plan and he might be sharing some hilarious Instagram Reel that makes fun of that to let his friends know that he's not buying it. Something like that.
He also could be, just his feed could be so dialed into just local political content. He could be mainlining public opinion and trying to understand what's important to voters heading into the next election. Yeah. You know.
Yeah. There's one more Claude post I want to show, the GIF animated in Python and rendered in Blender. And at this point, you know, I posted that AI video of you and people were asking like, what was the workflow? And I was like, you just ask it to do exactly what you want it to do, and you actually don't even need to know the word Blender. Like you can just...
You can even misspell every word and it will still...
No, you just open up the voice mode and I just talk and I'm like, you can even do multiple things now. So I was like, I have this children's story that I made up for my 5-year-old, and I was like, in one shot, I was like, take this story, turn it into a series of stories, then a series of children's books, go find a place that can print the children's books, illustrate it, turn it into short-form video, and also make a video game. And it did it all. It was just like spawning sub-agents to do it. And you can just do it all in one prompt. And I didn't need to be like, well, I want you to use JavaScript for this and Blender for that. You can just ask for what you want and basically get it from all the models right now. You have an interesting thesis. You're blackpilling on the application layer now. You think the models are getting so good that people are just going to use the AI tools. Does this change anything for you? Because I see this and I still feel like these are great. There's probably a couple revisions. When I do the prompts, I still sort of filter and review. I'll usually get like 20 outputs, pick the best one. I actually talked to an AI video founder yesterday who's doing AI movie production and whatnot. And it was absolutely printing using all the latest models. The business is doing fantastically. He's hiring four video editors like a week or a day or something, like he's hiring lots of people because there still is a lot of... it's not even prompt engineering. It's more like processing the output, curatorial work, understanding what is the right thing to fit together. And I think that mainly comes into picture when you're looking at something that's a bigger project. You want to go from a one-minute thing that might have some consistency, but when you go to two hours, the consistency becomes much more important. The style, the pacing, matching everything matters more. I don't know. I think we might be gearing up for another application layer versus model layer debate. We saw this with the Harvey discourse earlier this... I think we discussed that yesterday actually. People were sort of blackpilling because their margins went negative, but then all the models got cheaper since that released, and so you think better and cheaper back up. Yeah. But of course, if the models can do it at a base level, there is a world where every company just has, you know, a relationship with a foundation lab. So I don't know, we'll see. Anyway, people are feeling the AGI. 'The serious adult ML enjoyer at Anthropic.' He said, 'I'm feeling the AGI.' I gotta follow this guy back. 'I'm feeling the AGI.' He made this cool video with Opus 5.5. Then Shalto comes in from the top rope. 'We don't have AGI. The job's not finished.' I love the debate. Even internally, people are saying they're maybe loosening up comms over there. I think it's cool. I like seeing different takes. Of course, these companies are not monoliths. It's nice to actually get a glimpse into everyone's different perceptions. Everyone has different definitions for AGI, and I think it's cool to actually toy with them. Early in the show, I coined a definition of AGI, which was purely economics. Just when AI revenues equal non-AI revenues, you have AGI. So like when the AI economy is as big as the human economy, then that's AGI. And of course, that's completely arbitrary. Who knows if that's a valuable metric. Certainly interesting, but I can definitively say we're not there because AI is contributing like a quarter percent to GDP and total lab revenues are in like the hundreds of billions while we're doing like tens of trillions in the global economy or in the US economy even. So, interesting stuff, fun. Go play around with it. Let us know what you build. I like that they put the horse riding the astronaut on the moon. And I think there's probably some Blender under the hood, but it was cool that the model was able to do the post-processing and adding grain and texture that made it look very special. Like it popped out on the timeline, at least to me, because of that. Very cool. I also had an interesting test, like you really can hill-climb SVG. At one point, I just took an AI-generated image of a pelican riding a bicycle, which is of course because it's AI-generated, a GenAI image, looks amazing. And then I just told Astra like, 'Turn this into an SVG pixel by pixel.' And I was able to send it to you. It was like a 40-megabyte SVG, but it looks exactly like a pelican riding a bicycle. And so it calls into question like what even matters because you can use a generative AI tool to then create a Blender model to then create an After Effects file to then bake it down to a PNG or change it. Like every format changes into every other format. Use the best tool for the job. We're definitely in the regime of like how much did it cost to actually get that thing done as opposed to some artificial syntax benchmark around like a line of code costs this much. Like no one cares. No one cares what tools are being used under the hood. There's definitely a world where you go to a model, you ask for a thing, and if it needs to use Slack, it uses Slack. If it needs to use Photoshop, it uses Photoshop. If it needs to write its own thing in Python, it does that. It uses the right tool for the job and it intelligently chooses things just like a real person on your team would, which is exciting. What else?
EV News.
EV News.
From Dave over on X. He flagged this first.
Let me tell you about Codex. Codex is a powerful workspace for getting work done with AI agents. Whether you're writing code, analyzing data, creating content, or automating business workflows, Codex helps you move projects forward from start to finish.
We are one week out from the Roadster reveal.
Yeah.
Did you listen to the end of the show when you bounced?
We went deep on the Roadster. We got a scoop. We got a scoop from our guest who was next to a Tesla employee on a plane and was like pulling facts about him just to go leak it on TBPN. Yeah. Crazy.
No, no, I don't know how real this was because the guy could have been messing with them. I don't know. It's all rumor mill stuff, but the guy was basically like, 'Yeah, I was next to a Tesla employee and he was saying that the jets are not to make it fly. It's actually for downforce. It's going to suck it to the ground and it's going to go 0 to 60 in 1 second.' Very cool prediction. Very different from what we were saying. So, who had the lowest?
Yeah. The only thing is it doesn't track.
Who had the lowest number? So, you're closer to win if that's what happened.
Well, it doesn't track with what Elon was saying on Rogan, which is that ground fly.
And that's what I was getting at. It was like if you can have a fan or a jet that sucks you to the ground for one purpose, you can probably reverse those and boost up at least for a little bit for a little jump. But we'll see. We're counting it down. Well, in other EV news,
the road to Christmas, the road to Roadster, but we're still keeping an eye on it.
Saudi Arabia is aiming to disrupt the auto industry with these radical EVs.
They're wedges.
They have a brand called Ceer, XQV0.
It's coming as a sedan and an SUV.
It looks like sort of a futuristic Lamborghini option.
Yeah, there's a little bit of Huracan wedge in there. Little Cybertruck in there.
Is that...
This is Saudi Arabia's first true production car brand. So making these, there's such a hard trade-off between the wedge looks great but it's a terrible use of space. Like the optimal use of space is like the new Waymo vehicle which is basically just a box or like a bus.
You just care about utility now.
I'm just saying it's a trade-off. Like the more wedgie you get, the less utilitarian the vehicle's space is. Of course you need to have...
This one looks like somebody broke up with the new generation of Prius and now they've leveled up again. That was the original read on the Prius, is like, 'Who hurt you?' You know, because the new Prius is looking pretty stanced, you know? It's a level up.
But this is a level up.
Is it the Prime? Prius Prime looks pretty good. Yeah, they've done a good job.
Anyways, 850 horsepower tri-motor electric powertrain.
This thing looks insane.
It does look insane. I wonder where they'll hit in terms of price. That'll be interesting to see. I mean it's cool. Saudi Arabia obviously known for, you know, pretty outrageous car culture in many places.
What if they could make this the performance of the Lucid at only 60% of the cost?
Yeah, still hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hopefully not that. But it will be interesting.
Yeah, I have no idea where they would price this because it could be sort of like a national treasure, a point of pride. It could come in at a very high price. At the same time, an EV is a tough sell when you're in the six figures. Should we watch the trailer? The official trailer for you can see everything. We watched the preview clip. Now we get the full trailer. And I want you to pay attention to the quotes because the reviewers were floored by this movie. I've never seen quotes like this on a movie.
I know.
It's crazy.
People really, really enjoyed this.
Triple glaze.
Yeah. Seriously. While they pull that up, let me tell you about public.com. Investing for those who take it seriously. They got stocks, options, bonds, crypto, treasuries, and more with great customer service. I feel you did nothing wrong.
I did not.
So where did things get lost? Like how are you where you are right now?
I wish I knew, you know? I don't know. I don't feel like I understand that. So, I know you guys invited me to stay here. Does any part of you worry about me being here 24/7?
I don't think so.
Okay, so pause.
Well, what if I see 24/7.
He's actually, I think, living with Elizabeth Holmes.
Yeah.
And it's crazy because only Nathan Fielder would even think to throw out an idea of, hey, would you mind if I moved into your house before you go to prison and documented the entire process? Because you would think that there would be no circumstances where that would be a good idea.
I think it's just pure upside. There's very little downside to doing this. I mean, you're going to prison. Like worst case, you look worse, but you're in prison either way. Like, yeah, the only way you can go is up and actually endear some people to you, which is the attempt. We'll see how it lands. Let's keep watching.
That makes you look bad.
I think this is the moment in time.
No other film I've ever experienced.
Tell this story before I'm gone.
I fell in love in that first conversation.
Before or after that she revealed she was the founder of Theranos?
Probably before.
I mean, weren't you worried she was sort of scamming you?
100%. But what did she have to gain from me?
Well, isn't your family rich?
Yeah. I think that there's like a lot of different levels of wealth.
Come jump in with me.
You asking me to go?
Yeah.
You've never... What is this for?
Why are they doing a 3D scan?
That's just something Nathan would do. Do you mind if we scan your body? I saw that I was like, 'This has nothing to do with Theranos or going to prison.'
He...
Master...
can prepare you.
No, you don't.
I may think about this movie for the rest of my life. That is a crazy quote.
Be okay with it. Feels like there's going to be some twist or something. Very interesting. But I'm...
No, I think the whole thing is going to make the viewer feel like they're in a really bad acid trip.
Mhm.
Like all these scenes.
Yeah.
The pauses, the silence, the lighting, the sort of sense of impending doom, right? Because she's about to go to prison.
Yeah. The kids, you know, being present in these scenes. Like the whole thing is just like incredibly dark and weird.
I feel like it has to break expectations in some way because the average viewer is going to sit down and believe that she is guilty and that she lied and is like a sociopath because like that's sort of her brand, right? Is that like she never admitted any guilt and was guilty in the John Carreyrou retelling of the story and obviously the court findings. And so for it to be like that, I feel like there has to be some twist or something. I don't know. I would be shocked if it's just like, yep, she defrauded investors and didn't really build a good blood testing device and now she's in jail. Like the end. Like would that be...
I don't think it would get those quotes.
So I feel like there's going to be something crazy that happens, some complete twist, like maybe she's innocent or something, or maybe she's guilty of something else. There's...
The question is, who's the guy that she would call 'Tiger'?
Oh yeah. Ramesh 'Sunny' Balwani. I actually don't know. Yeah, because during the court case there was a question about his responsibility, should he bear more of the responsibility. But he doesn't seem to be in the trailer, so I don't know. Because one weird twist would be if you came away being like, that guy's more responsible than I thought. You know, but anyway, let me tell you about Figma. Agents meet the canvas. Your AI agents can now create and modify your Figma files with design system context. We have the president and CEO of Qualcomm, Cristiano, in the waiting room with Bren, TBPN Ultradome. Cristiano, how are you doing?
