The Six Five Pod | EP 266: Tech Giants' Chess Moves - From Meta's Hiring Flex to Oracle's Cloud Surge

What’s old is new again. Episode 266 shines a light on the renaissance of several legacy tech companies in the AI era. Oracle, IBM, and HPE are experiencing renewed relevance and growth, challenging the notion that only new, nimble startups can thrive in the AI landscape.

Pat & Dan also address Meta's “poaching” of talent from OpenAI. It’s an acquisition strategy that isn't just about bragging rights—it's a calculated effort to accelerate Meta's AI capabilities and potentially leapfrog competitors. Plus, a read on the market implications of the “OBBB,” and a debate over Tesla’s robotaxi gambit. Dive into this week’s handpicked topics:

‍

1. AI Talent Acquisition and Industry Shifts: Implications of Meta’s acquisition of OpenAI talent for the AI race and economic leadership as well as other challenges for OpenAI and Microsoft's Influence over their future.  (The Decode)
2. AI Infrastructure and Partnerships: Rumors about Google providing TPUs to OpenAI for inference. Analysis of potential collaborations between AI companies and hardware providers.  (The Decode)
3. Economic Policy and Fiscal Challenges: Fiscal conservatism and the need for economic growth. (The Decode)
4. Legacy Tech Company Renaissance: Oracle's strong performance in cloud infrastructure, IBM's growth compared to some "Magnificent 7" companies, and a resurgence of "old tech" names like HPE and Cisco (The Decode)
5. Tesla’s Robotaxi Gambit: Are Elon’s autonomy dreams coming true? (The Flip)
6. Fintech and Retail Investing: The recent market success of Robinhood and SoFi and the movement towards a democratization of finance and appealing to younger investors.  (Bulls & Bears)
7. HPE-Juniper Acquisition: $14 billion deal approved after DOJ review, with the potential to create a competitive alternative to Cisco, HPE's positioning as a full-stack AI solution provider. (Bulls & Bears)
8. AI and Enterprise IT: A discussion on the future of private data centers versus public clouds, the importance of networking in the AI era, and the convergence of compute, storage, and networking offerings.  (Bulls & Bears)

‍

Be sure to subscribe to The Six Five Pod so you never miss an episode.

‍

Or listen to the audio here:

Disclaimer: The Six Five Pod is for information and entertainment purposes only. Over the course of this webcast, we may talk about companies that are publicly traded and we may even reference that fact and their equity share price, but please do not take anything that we say as a recommendation about what you should do with your investment dollars. We are not investment advisors and we ask that you do not treat us as such.

‍

Daniel Newman: There's some other OpenAI related rumors this week, but my God, not a great week for Sam. But Mark, you know, kudos to you. Put those big nerdy glasses on and go. You just got in the UFC ring and you just kicked Sam's a**.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Welcome back to the Six Five Pod, where we kind of sort of know what we're talking about here. It's a great morning here and I am recording from an undisclosed bunker here in Austin, Texas. Probably the first bunker you've seen with windows. It's been a great week. No travel. If you're watching this, it's the July 4th weekend has happened and I'm going to pretend like I spent the weekend at the lake house on a boat, hanging out with my family. Daniel, how you doing, buddy?

‍

Daniel Newman: Yeah, you, your tan looks great. You've clearly been out in the sun a lot. It's great that you've done an undisclosed location where there's windows and everyone can actually see the buildings and identify them. Hey, I could do that, by the way, very quickly, just look at your background, figure out exactly where you are, drop a drone on top of you, blow it up, whatever it takes, you know, and yeah, we might know what we're talking about. I mean, you know, you could go on TV and talk about Quantum. Just nonsense, absolute nonsense. Trying to justify 5 billion dollar valuations with companies with 15 million dollars of revenue. And by the way, if that is the case, we're Futurum’s worth at least 50 billion at this point. I just want to point that out. We're probably about 50, maybe 100 billion at this point. So just.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: No, I love that. But do you have employees who work at five different companies or 50 different companies? That was the, the big talk last night. I did a search on said employee and I, I got an email from a person with the exact same name, but it's a different person from India. But anyways, Dan, you know, episode 266.

‍

Daniel Newman: I don't even know where that was going. I was, I just couldn't even follow that story. That was good. We're going to have to come back to that one.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: No, it was so good. And it's amazing. Apparently this gentleman was working for, you know, 50 different companies simultaneously. And then the Y Combinator folks finally realized the same person who they're paying for multiple jobs and then all these people are coming forward saying that they once employed this, this gentleman. Well, it could have just been a marketing launch because apparently he's working to launch a product. So anyways, we're gonna see here though, we got a great show for you. But first thing I want to talk about is I want to thank everybody for tuning in to the Six Five Summit. Thousands of you logged in, watched all these great conversations with the, the leading thought leaders in the industry. I think we had 20 plus CEOs and presidents there, a lot of CXO activity and, and even some individual contributing geniuses as well. You can still catch the action though. Hit the sixfivemedia.com website forward slash summit to catch all of the action. But Daniel, let's move forward here. We just can't talk about fake programmers here. Let's dive into The Decode where we hit the latest tech topics, themes, noise of the week and try to decode it for you.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: All right, Daniel, let's start off with some open AI news. You've got Meta poaching talent, you've got Oracle partnerships, we've got Google TPU rumors. Where do we start?

‍

Daniel Newman: Well, I mean, first and foremost, Pat, I got to ask you, have you injected your peptides today?

‍

Patrick Moorhead: We did hit the peptide section of the show. Yeah. Yeah.

‍

Daniel Newman: I just gotta make sure you're healthy because I don't know if you're actually, your mind is ready for what's about to happen here.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: No, I'm definitely ready for it. And I did. I've been up since, gosh, 4:00 this morning, a hard time sleeping in, but I am ready. I mean I'm two cups of caff, two cups of coffee in. I didn't have any pre-workout. I've lifted six days in a row and my body just needs a break. I'm literally sore everywhere.

‍

Daniel Newman: That's good. I mean that's actually the goal. If you're not sore, you're not doing it right. But if you are sore, you need more BPC. So that's the, that's the trick out there for everybody. But yeah, let's talk about this. Let's talk about 75 million a year I believe is, is. What is it Satya Nadella makes at Microsoft running the world's second largest company? Most important, almost $4 trillion in market cap. Cristiano Ronaldo just, just renewed his contract. The world's most famous footballer, soccer player, I think it was around $80 million multi-year per year contract. You know, probably influences billions of dollars of annual spending. But you know who makes more money? Is a unknown unnamed Chinese researcher who decides to leave OpenAI and come work for Meta. Seeing bonuses as high as $100 million from Zuck. What does it mean? To me, it means that this is the end of the any fundamental belief that this AI trend is some sort of cycle or some sort of near term bubble. This is basically the largest companies in the world with the most robust balance sheets, the ones that are cutting percentages of their staffs right now because some idiots out there think it's, it's economically driven. Because what they all know is what the dumb and normal people like us out there don't know is that the AI race is going to decide not just the next few years, but the next few decades of economic leadership. Spending a hundred million dollars. By the way, this is just for the initial, this is the sign on. Then these folks are making 50, 60 million a year to leave OpenAI and come over and work for Meta. Because Meta is chasing Super Intelligence. Now, a few weeks ago I went on CNBC and some dumb people out there, not the people on the show, just some dumb people were making comments that Meta's falling behind. Look, Zuck just pulled the ultimate super move. It was an ultimate flex. It was like you being in the gym and pushing 315. He just pushed around what, about a billion dollars in just paying people, didn't buy anything. And that was after spending $14 billion to buy 49% of Scale AI so that he could, you know, laugh at the SEC and the FTC about buying startups with no repercussions and getting complete control of them. Because I'm pretty sure Alexander Wang is going to run Super Intelligence. And I don't know if Scale AI is even a business anymore, but that's okay because at some point that stuff may all catch up. But he is making the moves, making the flex. And by the way, Sam Altman and his diabolical schemes and his arrogance is absolutely getting all the blowback right now, as Satya Nadella has over him and under him and around him, basically completely dictating what's going to happen to that company going forward. They can't go public, they can't become a public benefactor company. They're going to struggle to raise money because right now Microsoft is just saying, hey, we're going to put the brakes on you. We're going to make you go a little bit slower so we have time to catch up. We will decide if you can go public when you can go public. And at the very same time, Sam Altman is once again going on in public commentary that nobody is going to leave him. And I'm pretty sure Wang yesterday published the list of researchers that he hired on Twitter, which was, I think nine or ten of the very top researchers responsible for the most important models that OpenAI put out. And now they all work for Meta. So I'm going to stop on this one. There's some other OpenAI related rumors this week, but my God, not a great week for Sam. But Mark, you know, kudos to you. Put those big nerdy glasses on and go. You, you just got in the UFC ring and you just kicked Sam's a**.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, every wave they go through and people are paying mega bucks for people. Believe it or not, when SAP was new, that was the highest paid programmer. And I think in today's dollars, they were making 500, 750 a year, which was–

‍

Daniel Newman: Right.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Sorry, sorry. Yeah, yeah. 250. 500,000 a year to 750. That was the big thing. HTML, like if you knew HTML, you were a god. Right. So every wave has it. But this, this is truly looney looney tunes. And I think the prime researcher who Zuck put in charge of this, I think, is he 26 years old? And he's got the entire AI God troop reporting to him. That's pretty, that's pretty. It's pretty crazy. Yeah, yeah. No, I mean, it's, it's, it's pretty wild. So. Yeah. And what a way to utilize your core competency, which is scale and a ton of money and essentially board control, to make it happen. You know, Sam Altman was so diabolical. What was his response? Let everybody go on vacation for a week. Somehow I think that everybody's not on vacation for a week. I think it's all hands on deck and he's going to figure out strategically how not to fail and how to move.

‍

Daniel Newman: Interviewing at Meta

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Something…I don't know, maybe get acquired by Meta for 12 cents or 12 billion, who knows? But anyways, it's pretty crazy. I did want to hit another OpenAI rumor and I'll, I'll read your, I'll read your tweet from June 27th. “Google will provide TPU to OpenAI for inference.” And you had some smart things to say about training, how, you know, related to OpenAI, but it seems like, at least based on the correction, that none of that was true.

‍

Daniel Newman: I've had some back channels from some of the reporters Because I actually put a second piece out on X that basically said, this is one of those great instances, Pat, where probably both sides are right. Meaning that you and I both know that it's just like process nodes, right? Every Fabless is testing every node. Like we know everybody tested 18A, right? And yet there's this kind of like as soon as you heard it was testing, someone would write a story that people are going to use Intel and it's like, no, no, no, no. This is all part of the process. My guess is Sam has been struggling to get in. His GPUs have been melting. Everybody knows that vertical integration of, of the XPU stack is going to be monetarily advantageous. They know that inference versus training has different economics. They're probably testing TPUs and they might even be doing some production work with TPUs. This is my guess, by the way. Nothing I've confirmed. But at the same time, what benefit does OpenAI have to put that out there? I mean, first of all, the last thing they want to do is get in put on Jensen's penalty box and not get the access to the, you know, hardware they need. And at the same time, why do they necessarily want to spill their secrets? I mean, it doesn't serve OpenAI well at all for people to think they're using a compact editors hardware infrastructure to potentially inference or train their own models. So I bet, it’s like I said, I had some people blow me up because in my redaction piece where I kind of called out that this source, by the way, this source has tried to blow up NVIDIA a number of times. This source just came out yesterday with a Microsoft story about them blowing up their own AI silicon development. And they haven't necessarily been all wrong, but the way they tell their stories are very “FUD”-y and they've been really good at sort of manipulating the market's perception of companies when a lot of their stories are 10% accurate, 90%. So anyways, my point is like, I think both sides are right. I don't think it was wrong. I think they got some good scoop. But I bet you where they are on that continuum is probably wrong.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, some of these stories really show a lack of depth of understanding how this business works. And you know, you talked about the first one, which was absolutely – don't be confused with testing something and running production workloads. Okay? And then even if they're running production workloads, you have to know the percentage of it to see if it's even relevant. They're testing it out. In fact, it might even be Google who's adding the resources to get it working versus OpenAI. And Sam needs any leverage he can on NVIDIA. I mean my gosh, he went up on stage at AMD's Advancing AI event and gave Lisa Sue a big hug right after you know, Jensen twice for the latest two waves of GPUs has you know, taken selfies with Sam Altman right in front of a AI server rack of, of NVIDIA GPUs. So yeah, he's trying everything out and you know his, what was his 7 trillion dollar “I'm going to build everything” plan that failed. So you know, we needed a plan B, C or, or D and you can chalk that up to you know, Sam Altman saying he's going to take out Meta, he's going to take out Apple. With Jony Ive, I mean the company's great but the company also apparently has limits. But it is interesting, this whole – I would call it comprehensiveness of journalism will come into play when we talk about the next big article. And that was the rumor that Intel is getting out of 18A for Foundry. And I've got a lot, a lot of things to say about that but the timing always seems to coincide when Intel goes into their quiet period. Have you noticed that? And I am convinced that there is some sort of a cabal to manipulate Intel stock, and if you look at the swings and the volatility of the stock, it's a, it's a fun play toy. Anybody who wants to pick up on the spreads up and down and even puts an options action as well. But here is my belief just based on, I don't know, a deep understanding of what's going on in the industry and what's going on inside of Intel. So 18A was never created as a – from the inception to be a Foundry node. And well, what does that mean? That would mean that you would have to have all the IPs, right? All, all of the toolsets literally show up on day one, three years before the first ships would come out. That's, that's the reality. And even Intel customer 0 for 18A is Intel 18A, 18AP and other other derivatives. Intel has signed on two branded customers for low volume networking chips. That's Amazon and Microsoft and really an unknown Xeon Stix customized SoC. Well there's no details on that but that's basically an Intel design. So with that said, I do believe that they didn't attract the big whales with 18A or 18AP. I think we all knew that. Even Jensen came out at GTC and said we would have had to have made a decision three years ago before shipping Blackwell. So that, that's a reality check. But what I do think though is that they're going to stop selling 18A and all derivatives of 18A to any new Foundry customers. Okay. I do. And, putting all those resources into 14A. I do believe there will be some sort of a write down for IP that they put into R&D, into what I will call Foundry, only in investments that they made. It is a shame that a lot of that IP that was created for 18A that's not being used by Intel will be wasted. Probably 40% is reusable and 60% is wasted. You know, on gate all around for analog stuff it's really good. But when you get into the fast twitching digital stuff you're not going to be able to. That's basically – you're going to have to rewrite that. So, also, I don't think Intel is going to be telling Amazon or Microsoft “Sorry, we're not going to be doing your chips.” But Intel does need to focus, it needs to focus on Foundry whales and I believe that 14A is their last shot. If they don't hit it with 14A with Foundry, they're done. And they need at least one anchor tenant aside from Intel or nobody will trust them in the customer set or in the financial community.

‍

Daniel Newman: Fair. I think this is a – I mean, again, I want to wait to hear from Intel a little bit more about this but like, I mean I think it's a pretty big shot across the bow. I mean a lot of people had expectations that 18A would land a bigger logic customer and the fact that it's kind of being respun this way could. Your point is right. I think the anchor tenant was always Intel for this node. But the fact that they weren't able to pull together really any other volume player on logic was is a pretty difficult one for investors to swallow. It just pushed out the whole thesis at least a couple more years which again they've been pretty honest about that thesis of Foundry and when it would make money. But again, is there ever going to be a set of circumstances where the world is more accommodating, meaning between tax credits that are going to be in this “one beautiful bill,” between the economics of tariffs and potential cost incurrences that people are going to run into, between kind of the nationalism, the extreme nationalism that we have right now in terms of building our own here. Them being the only company that's actually American that can do advanced logic at scale in and is a U.S. company where we can control all the IP. And I feel like this really does cede more momentum to TSMC. I mean TSMC is our number one on our AI 15. And frankly, it's because all roads go through TSMC right now. All roads. There is no advanced GPU chips that are going really anywhere else. And you know, this was Intel's potential moment. Doesn't mean they can't get there. It's just really, if I'm an investor, I'm really disappointed as an analyst, as someone that's kind of stood up for them over the last few years. It's hard to swallow at this point. And I really, to your point, kind of put a “wait and see,” like they gotta land something. You know, I will give credit though. Like, he's making moves. Like he's doing it quietly. He's staying out of the press. He's not doing the whole “Rah Rah” on tour thing. He's literally just quietly chopping things up, cutting out costs, cutting out programs that don't work. This is what you have to do to make it a turnaround. I mean, I do believe this is what you're gonna have to, they're gonna have to do. So we'll see, Pat.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: But I want to throw this out there though. I want to ask a question. Like, I didn't expect any whales on like, after the direct connect, nobody got up on stage and that's where you would have gotten up on stage. You would have gotten up on stage to talk about something. 18A. I had mentally just written it off after that. Was there any indication the only company, certainly not a whale company.

‍

Daniel Newman: Right.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: You have to lock and load on your process between three and four years before the chip ships. Right.

‍

Daniel Newman: There's been PDK tape outs, testings, like did nothing. Nothing materialized. Of course it took a while for certifications and everything to happen. I don't know. I guess it's not that there's any surprise here. The fact that there isn't a surprise is actually maybe the most disappointing part. That it's not surprising to us that it didn't happen. And you know, basically it's, it's another cycle lost. I mean, there's just a lot of work to be done over there. I mean, I think he's trying to do the work, I'll give him credit for that. But the challenges are palpable. But I still think there are conditions that can be met that could see Intel being really successful. The the actual dependency on TSMC to me is scary. It's scary. It should scare you, it should scare everyone out there that we do not control the IP on the most advanced logic and we still have a nation that's doesn't really even truly know if it has independence from China.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, I totally agree and I think that's undisputed. There are a lot of chip companies that aren't whale customers that could have used 18A, 18AP and even lower power derivatives to do a lot of other things, right? Just not the Qualcomm, NVIDIA, Broadcom, Marvell of the world with XPUs where you need the absolute bleeding edge technology, not to mention Apple. And I've said this many times, 18A was never a mobile flow, right? 1814A was the first bet, even a potential for a mobile flow for Apple and, and Qualcomm. You could be analog customers, right? A lot of analog possibilities. Heck, analog is on 22 nanometer, right? 22 nanometer FDX or 20 FDX. Right. You don't need bleeding edge or leading edge for that. And there is an in between ground, particularly in places like IoT as an example, or industrial chips. So yeah, it's interesting to see see the reaction. You definitely see the people who understand the industry and those who don't understand the industry. But hey, let's move on here, buddy. The Senate, right? There was a bill that was out there that said the United States government would control all AI regulation for all states for 10 years. It seemed like an interesting type of thing would make sense from a we're not going to slow down kind of like the E we've seen with the EU and then it gets completely overturned 99 to 1 in the Senate. What's going on here, Daniel?

‍

Daniel Newman: Well, Pat, this was what they were trying to do is slip this into the one BBB, one big beautiful bill which looks like it's going to with some changes. Tough situation by the way. We maybe, maybe we'll have time at the end to talk more about that when we talk markets a bit. But look, I think there's – you know, we certainly have a very progressive leadership in the White House right now that wants to lead the world in things like AI and Crypto under David Sacks. Crypto in AI Czar the world. They're trying to diffuse our AI technology to the world. And they want to make sure that we lead the world in AI. One way to be all but certain we will have challenges to lead the world in AI is to, I guess as a republic, right? We really are a republic to give state level, which we give a lot of control to the states, especially in this current administration, which tends to always yield more power back to the states to let each state decide how it wants to regulate AI. So the goal is to sort of slip this mandate in while giving these big tax breaks and while giving all this spending that we're going to do trillions of dollars. Love it or hate it, that's why Musk is so pissed off right now, was to also get a 10 year basically mandate that does not allow states to regulate AI. You know, I don't know how I feel about it, Pat. I got to be honest, like part of me says, we create risk for ourselves by taking this to the state level. You have states like California that won't let us build out the future of automation and autonomy. They probably won't ever let us have autonomous vehicles. They'll probably want to bring cabs back, not robo taxis, yellow cabs with drivers paid $47 an hour and charging $100 for a two mile ride. Because that's, you know, how California continues to deprogress by, you know, making wages, you know, irreconcilable and bringing businesses here to Texas. Alternatively, in other states, they know they may push faster and move faster, which could also create more of that inertia out of those states that overregulate into states that have more deregulation. But the bottom line is the states don't want to completely acquiesce control to the federal government and they don't want to be dependent on federal government, you know, which obviously this could work great now, but what if the administration changes? It could also flip the other way, which could be very damning. I think there's a little bit of a checks and balances that remains here by giving some level of state autonomy. And if certain states want to govern away innovation and hurt their economies, let them do that. But at the same time, clearly, Pat, this wasn't even a partisan line. I mean, clearly the Republicans, Democrats, none of them agreed with this. None of this wanted to, none of them wanted to yield this. So this was dead upon arrival. But it is a conversation about how fast we want to move with AI and how damning it might be. We will definitely see a bifurcation between the different States, some are going to run fast, some are going to go slow, and AI will be a line in the sand for economic growth and we'll see which, which states get it right. But I have a pretty good idea how that's going to end up working out.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, Dan, maybe we should have debated this, but I think, I think Congress will take another whack at this and have it not, you know, connected to, to anything. And it will, it will be more specific on the types of things. So, you know, maybe states rights on data and how data is, is ultimately used, that might, that might come back. But yeah, I mean, we have a risk of slowing down here. Sorry about that background. We have a risk of slowing down and China, who is moving forward under one giant national type of effort here. So I do think that free markets are an important thing. I mean, Elon Musk leaving California, that was a way to do this. But right now, which is pretty scary, the concentration of AI talent in San Francisco is, you know, let's say if it takes a year, they decide that they're going to move out of San Francisco and move to Austin, Austin, Texas. We would still lose a certain amount of time, I think, as those, as those people move. But can you imagine all those rich AI people leaving San Francisco as their primary place? Let's say, what is it, 270 days a year or 170 days a year? I forget when I lived in California what the living in California technically was. But imagine all that tax revenue leaving the state, leaving. I almost want to see it happen just to, just to see what happens.

‍

Daniel Newman: Pat, All I'll say is this is the China thing may get some complications. I don't know if you saw that Huawei is going to be under criminal charges for racketeering in the United States. So the – it's moving forward. You know, the ability for China, China to ever diffuse its AI technology outside the US is just a way overstated and way overrated possibility. I'm not to say that there's not some brick nations that could potentially get on board or, you know, parts of Africa, the ones that have invested in Telco, but those ones also need massive subsidy to get anything done. They're not. Anyway, long story long. I agree, I agree there's, there's probably going to be some more debate on this. I think this is also a symptom of the United States trying to just shove so much stuff into bills that just this, like, why is this even in this bill? We're trying to solve debt we're trying to solve taxes, we're trying to solve, you know, funding. Why not make this, given the importance of the topic, something that gets its own standalone bill debates, conversation, something else. Hakeem Jeffries can spend 40 hours, you know, filibustering, you know, before intelligent viewpoint on it.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: And I think we actually have intelligent people in the cabinet now on tech, like David Sachs who can, you know, provide wise counsel on growth and how to, and how to do this. But yeah, I think it'd be pretty fun to see California clamp down in all of AI and New York and, and see where these companies move and how quickly that they, that they move locations. But hey, would we end up with.

‍

Daniel Newman: Sovereign data centers for every state? Are we gonna, you know, like, by the way, Jensen might love that. Like, we need a sovereign Texas data center. A sovereign. And then of course.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: HPE, Dell and Cisco and Lenovo would freaking love that stuff.

‍

Daniel Newman: Let's go Cisco.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Seriously? Yeah, I said Cisco. Did you? Yes.

‍

Daniel Newman: Did you really?

‍

Patrick Moorhead: But yeah, they would love it too. Yeah. Hey, they're in your AI top 50, top 25, right?

‍

Daniel Newman: They're an honorable mention in the AR15. It's hard to get on our A15, but they did just make our Cyber Seven that, that we –

‍

Patrick Moorhead: I thought your list was 25-15, but –

‍

Daniel Newman: There was seven honorable mentions in there. But there will be 25 on a different thing we're doing. I can't say much about that.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Awesome. Hey, let's jump into the next topic. Amazon brought out a release that talked about new AI foundational model models with its robotic fleet. And also a huge milestone that gets Amazon to its one millionth robot deployed. That's pretty amazing, man, when you think about it. And the other thing, and I, I researched this as well. Is the largest single company with industrial robots. Now, China has a lot more robots in mass as a country, but when we're looking at single entities, Amazon has the most. And I just thought this, this was amazing. And you know, we can talk about the jobs thing, I think in one of our, our next topics here. But I thought that their packaging of this was really good and really good timing for Amazon. And some people are asking, hey man, what about Amazon and AWS with generative. Generative AI? And you know, Jensen calls the industrial AI age as the largest opportunity out there. A trillion dollar opportunity even in front of enterprise data center AI that I find fascinating. The other thing is this is a, this was a real showcase of Amazon's capability. They have a New foundational model called Deep Fleet AI which is essentially coordinating multiple robots. And you know, when you and I went to that fulfillment center here near Austin, you didn't have people who were walking to pick things in the warehouse. The shelf was actually driving to them. And there's even technologies to help unload and load trucks. So just simply, simply fascinating. And you have to, you know, you have to wonder, you know, related to let's say a zoo, that's an Amazon investment, I believe, but also autonomous trucking for, for Amazon. And the, the, essentially the robotics capability of this, it just gets me thinking, my gosh, if we have a company like Amazon, does Amazon get into manufacturing, creating a, I mean their warehouse and just warehousing and distribution? They're not creating and building products in their factories. But if a company like Amazon knows robots as well as they do, would they get into a manufacturing, a robotics, manufacturing platform? Fascinating stuff.

‍

Daniel Newman: Yeah, it kind of bridges nicely in our next topic. I'm not going to drum on this one too much, but we're the, the velocity and pace of robotics, physical AI converging with the pace of knowledge-based AI, and agents is incredible right now. You know, and you just look at the advancements and then you look at how companies are investing and look, Amazon's doing the right thing. I mean there will be a future. Well, and you know, like you heard Tesla delivered its first car autonomously, meaning car came off the damn line, drove off and went to someone's front door. Think about that. I mean it's incredible. You're going to have people driving around our town. We're in Austin, some of the most advanced, you know, implementations of Autonomy. And then you've got our factories now where everything is moving. And you and I went there years ago when it was happening. And now with the advancements, you're going to see humanoid types that are going to start to handle the more complicated things. Because the robots that exist today all had to be, it was very specific. They run on paths, they have lines that they're running down. This is not robots walking around the factory moving stuff. But look, we're going to start to see that stuff happen. I'm just glad I'll be retired, you know, in the next couple of years because you know, I'm going to put Dan-Bot to work. I'm going to license my likeness. If anybody sees value in it, that can be a royalty, like writing a book, then I'll go, you know, find some old institution to teach at where people are still dumb enough to pay to go to college. I'm paying for two right now. I'm still dumb enough stuff. And I'll go sit there and talk to, to kids about, you know, I'll teach some sort of. I don't know, I'll teach entrepreneurship to kids. I'll tell them how to, you know, go file for a, for a LLC in the state of Texas or something like that. But yeah, it's moving really quickly.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Yeah. Dan. Can I get Dan-Bot with like, like a hair, like a lot of hair? Like an afro or like a zipper head right down there or something like that? That'd be cool.

‍

Daniel Newman: It was really cute. Last night my uncle sent me this photo. I don't know if people can see it. That was me as a little kid, but I had hair. So just in case anybody wonder, there was a time in my life that I had hair. It's.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: You sent me a picture of you. And I'm not going to use her name on air, but you and your wife and you were. You look. I mean, you look great now, but you look great with hair too.

‍

Daniel Newman: Yeah, I might at some point. I still can't understand how we can figure out how to give men pervasive erections. And we can, you know, inject things that can make you lose tons of weight, but we've not yet figured out how to. We just have all these nonsensical topicals and pills that basically help you grow like four extra hairs. And most three of them will be on your back. Like, how have we not solved this yet? Like, of all the things, like, is there a crispr gene? Like, what do we need to do to solve the fact that, you know, hair should come back, but my back hair and air hair are like, really picking up in my 40s.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Gosh, it's the worst, man. I'm Scottish and I grow more hair.

‍

Daniel Newman: You are a sweater guy. I mean, like, I know you're, you're not. You're all muscly. You've cleaned that up a little bit. But yeah, you're definitely got that sweater thing going. So enjoy that at the lake, everybody. Pat's Sweaters coming up this weekend.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: No, I'm gonna, I'm gonna shave before I go out to the lake.

‍

Daniel Newman: Can I make one more comment before we move on to The Flip? Because I know we've gotta run, but I just – about this whole, this AI and job loss.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, you've been pretty vocal on the AI job loss, what's going to happen perspective.

‍

Daniel Newman: But yeah, this is not Economics. When you have a company with $90 billion or $80 billion on their balance sheet, that's at all time highs cutting 9%, sorry, 9,000 jobs, 4% of their workforce and doing it amidst a raging stock market that's literally incenting growth. You just like, I really can't understand how divergent people's minds have become to convince themselves that it's the economy. This is the absolute making of multiple years of planning now as companies saw generative AI come out and started to make a plan. You know, you saw Mark and Satya on stage just recently talking about how much of their code rep and repositories now and how much of it is being developed and delivered with AI. And you're talking numbers. 30 I think, I I think something like 30, maybe 40 Mark said maybe up to much as 50%. So I mean this is the comp. This just the computer science side. But then you see these workflows and processes and things like contact centers, call centers, customer service jobs. I think of things like PR and I'm having conversations with these executives. Like the quiet part out loud is AI is definitely freezing hiring in a lot of these roles. I mean they're not hiring any more people. And then the second question is like, do we really need all these people? Third question is like and then all these agencies and support mechanisms that these companies have spent money on. Like when you can draft a high quality, you know, press release in seven seconds. Yeah, sure. It needs a gloss over and it needs an edit and you need to check because these things do hallucinate. They absolutely get stuff wildly wrong and but like it's happening. Okay, the robots that you were just talking about is going to take these used to be people move. And this is not to say that it's a permanent state. And that's the one part, like I think everybody's misreading that. What's happening now is this is the prune part of prune to grow. So the pruning is like, yeah, all these roles. Like there is no definitive upscale up. Up level because we don't know quite yet what the up level opportunities are because we're just starting to put the infrastructure in place but we've identified immediately the efficiencies. So I just want to say like what we're seeing is, is, is you know, we even saw like the gig economy pack. Scale the gig economy with, with Tesla. Like when you have the option to ride in a Waymo or Robo taxi and you trust that Are you gonna get in like, Joe's Toyota Corolla and roll through Austin? Are you gonna get into a Waymo or into a Robo taxi? I mean, I know where I stand on that topic. Poor Joe and his Toyota Corolla, which has become his gig economy, which became his moneymaker, which became his. You know, every day I could wake up and decide to work and do it on my own schedule and become an intrapreneur entrepreneur. That's, that's gone. That's going to be gone when this stuff rolls out and we're not. It's, it's happening. It's not like, oh, in 10 years, it's like, it's happening in my town, our town right now.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, I've been pretty consistent. I mean, two years ago people asked me, where are we going to see the job reductions? And there will be job losses, but there will be new job creations. And it's the sea of cubes that weren't redone in Internet 1.0 and Internet 20. It's accounts payable, it's accounts receivable, it's human resources, it's customer service. It's pretty much any place that you can go to. And, you know, you're, you're trying to get information. You need somebody to aggregate information. I think you're going to see big reductions in, in, in finance. You've got to get the, you've got to get that straightened out and how you do that. But those areas where you still have just a ton of people, I think that those are going to be the, the first ones that, that, that are impacted. But good discussions on these. This is kind of like the Hallmark topic. It's the gift that keeps on giving. It's never going to go away. All right, Daniel, let's move to the next segment in the show. It is The Flip where we take very hard sides on very nuanced topics that are difficult, but it certainly is entertaining here. And today we're going to jump into Tesla robotaxis kicked off here in Austin, delayed a few cars out there. There's been a lot of robotaxis setting out there. But the question for The Flip here is, “Are Tesla robotaxis, let's say in the next 12 months, are they game changing? Or is this just another hype cycle from the king of hype, Elon Musk himself?” Let's flip the coin. All right, Dan, you're basically an Elon Musk lover here. And this is in the last 12 months. Dive in.

‍

Daniel Newman: Just like Musk knows we need to cut spending. This industry needs to evolve, needs to innovate and let's take the biggest input that makes transportation too expensive. And you and I both know you go to New York, you go two blocks in an Uber and it's 60 bucks, let's make it cheaper. And one of the best ways to do that is to take out the biggest cost input. This is thematic throughout our show, Pat, but this isn't just about taking out that labor input. This is also about safety. We already know full self driving is much safer than humans. We already know that. Waymo and others have proven in our own very town here in Austin that driverless vehicles can safely deliver a tremendous high quality service and can take people within certain communities and with restrictions, geofenced restrictions. But over the next 12 months, I think within those restrictions, within. This is game changing. Tesla's got cars. You heard me say it just in the last segment coming off the line, being delivered to people's homes with no driver required. That's where we are at in this world. We are going to see more driverless. We're seeing it already in our town. And Pat us, you know, Tesla has hundreds and hundreds of millions of real world miles that it's been able to get because it's had the distribution, something that Waymo and others don't have. So while it's Waymo has chosen the multi sensor, hundreds of thousands of dollars per vehicle. Tesla's doing it with 20 something thousand dollars, 30 something thousand dollars vehicles that can be delivered at scale reducing cost inputs within these geofence communities. People want it, people love it. Tesla super fans. And now that Musk is out of dc, he's getting more of his fans back and this thing is absolutely going to take off. You could see it during the launch, you could see the interest in it, you can see the enthusiasm in it. You can. This is good for business, it's good for labor, it's good for, it's not good for labor for people, it's good for the business and it's good for the cost inputs and it's good for the profits. This thing is absolutely going to go city to city to city. It might take a little more time, that's pretty common in Musk's but it's an absolute game changer. I'm all in. This is a big upside for the Tesla's name, the Tesla stock and Tesla's future.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, I mean Elon Musk has never hit a date he's ever put out there ever. Right. We're talking about the next year here. He might get it right, I don't know, three, four, five years from now. But essentially he chose the wrong platform to do full auto. You can't do full auto just with cameras. It's like saying that humans and their eyes are the best. Well, humans can't see through fog, they can't see through rain, they can't see very well in darkness. And a camera, as we can see with our smartphone, it does a decent job in the dark, but it can't see through fog, it can't see through rain, it can't see through snow. So it's going to be very limited. And the data does show that self driving is more, sorry, robotic driving is, is, is better than humans. But when you parse out drunk people, when you parse out tired people, and I would say reasonable people who aren't taking risks, I, I just don't believe that, that this is, is the case. And even if, even if it were Daniel, it, it doesn't matter because the first person that gets killed with a robotaxi, it's going to come to a screeching, a screeching halt. And you know, check out my ex, my son, right? And he's used FSD for 10,000 miles. They couldn't even get a lane change correct. And it, you know, thank goodness he didn't hit a brick wall or brick abutment. He ended up hitting these plastic paddles that ripped off his unused radar sensor and scratch the side of a car. But what's going to happen when it hits, hits a child or, you know, it takes out a, a bicycle or, or something like that. And this is where the gap of, I'll call it accuracy dials, dials in. Let's just say it gets 99.9% that 0.01 of you know, plowing into a human being either on the highway or something like that, it's going to come to a screeching halt. And I do want to talk about scale. Like some people think Tesla was the first tech out there for this. It wasn't. Google has been working on this technology five to 10 years before Tesla even did that. And they are fully robotic driving in Phoenix, San Francisco, Louisiana, Austin, Atlanta, Georgia are about to launch. Miami, dc, New York, Tokyo. And you have four cars doing minimal rides here in Austin, Texas. I just don't think that in a year it's going to be game changing or impact anything that Waymo slash Google is, is doing, is doing out there. So yeah, I mean, once again We've got another debate that, that, that I've won. And this was. This one. This one was an easy one. Question I have for all of you out there is, would you put your family, your dearest friends, your parents in a. In a Robotaxi today? Thank you very much.

‍

Daniel Newman: Same question. You gotta ask about some of the Uber drivers that have committed murders and have, you know, killed people and that, you know, there's all kinds of track records on that. Heck, I've been in cars with you. I've been in cars with you that I'm scared. You know, I'm not talking about Ubers. I'm talking about when you drive. So, you know.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, I mean, at least. At least we know evil, right?

‍

Daniel Newman: I mean, I went around that track with you and I watched you take those corners so slowly, I almost killed myself. Understand? How could you take the back straight at Coda, you know, were you pushing the car? Were you actually pushing the gas? Were you behind it? 

‍

Patrick Moorhead: I mean, the back straight, I was doing over 150, so that was not the issue. It was a slight turns the Chicane at the end.

‍

Daniel Newman: The Chicane. All right, well, it's scary at that speed, y'all. Thanks for letting me win again, Pat.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, no, I appreciate you always teeing yourself up so I can walk all over you. I do appreciate it.

‍

Daniel Newman: It's important that the world knows who the better debater is. I got a B in debate back in college.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: But hey, let's. Let's dive into the final topic here. And Daniel, I think this is probably going to be your favorite topic because I think this is all you do. 24x7, which is stock tweets, you opened up Futurum Equities, you know, but let's dive into Bulls and Bears, where we talk about the latest earnings reports, the movers and the shakers, the industry – cutting through the signal and the noise here. Let's dive in here. All right. Big, beautiful bill. Biggest spending bill in the history of the country, ever. And we are trillions in debt. With the debt service nearly outpacing growth at some future point. It's pretty ugly.

‍

Daniel Newman: Daniel, you know, I want you to know that every moment I'm on a show with you, whether we're talking deep tech or we're talking about markets, is the best moment of my day.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Ah, bestie, I appreciate that. Thank you. That makes my HRV go.

‍

Daniel Newman: I definitely, you know, do believe that. No, the CEOs that we help with the products and technology, care more about the stock price than anything else. So pay a lot of attention to that. Anyway, this is interesting. I mean, Elon Musk is going to probably start a new party to try to combat what we just saw happen. This is what I think it – I don't believe we're uniparty. I mean, you're hearing that stuff like, oh, we're uniparty now. I do believe that we do not have a real fiscal conservative existence anymore that does not exist. Because what's happened is to get elected the entitlements and what you have to bring to your state requires so much, much pork and spending and, and silliness that right now to get anything done in this big bureaucratic system that we have is all about the money and the money is not. You know, so, you know, I look at Secretary of the Treasury, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant and I think he's been one of the steady hands of the tariff era, of the big beautiful bill of tax, of economy, of interest rates. And I think what he has said is probably what I would listen to most closely. Trump is a provocateur, you know, but in the end we are in a situation where, you know, we only have one choice. After we've created 37 trillion in debt and there is no turning the clock back, there is no cutting enough meaningful spending to ever turn this debt thing in the other direction. So we have to outrun it with growth. So then the question is, how do you stimulate growth? Well, the nice thing is, we know as business people is, you know, you can cut costs to meet profit levels for a period of time, but saving to say, you know, saving your way to profit is a short term solution. Do we need to get some spending levels intact? Probably. Can we? I don't think we can. So I think they're being realistic about the situation. I think extending tax cuts, I think giving more incentives to businesses, I think deregulation are the things that are going to create and stimulate more economic growth. I think that's what they're hoping is going to happen here. You saw big tax credits for things like foundry development and advanced technology. We're seeing, you know, other significant tax credits. We're seeing lower taxes for higher earners. Most of those are the entrepreneurs. People don't love that. But when entrepreneurs are making money, they invest, they allocate capital, they want to put money to work. Don't believe in trickle down economics. That's okay. Some people don't. I think overall whether you're a Reaganomics person or you're a Trumponomics person, we've seen it work better than socialism. I would look at the New York City project and we'll look at that in a couple years or Chicago and see what happens when you try to let the government actually dictate all the spending. Pat, this was a no win situation. Meaning the win here is getting the tax cuts extended. The win here is some levels of deregulation, some levels of tax credits, taking some of this silly spending on things like forcing green technologies that we know aren't actually working and getting them out of our spending. But there's a lot of crap in this bill. There's a ton of crap. I just don't think there was any option. I really don't believe there's any option. I don't see any way besides what Secretary Besson has said, which is we need to outrun this thing with growth.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Listen, I like the thesis. It worked for Reagan, right? We went from almost depression level economic growth with Carter. We had the oil embargo where prices went up 3 to 5x. You're too young for this. But we literally were running out of gas and gas lines and it was one of the coldest winters as well. And getting coal and natural gas was difficult as well. I don't think anybody froze to death, but it was just – what a grim time. And Reagan came in and Reagan didn't, he came in as a reduction in spend guy, but he didn't actually reduce spend. What he did is he put monster growth out there. You know, interest rates were 13-14. Think about that. I know we're all whining about 7, 7%, but imagine 13-14, credit card was like 25 or 30%. It was completely, completely insane. And I think we're in this mode which I just can't believe. We spend so much more than we bring in. And the whole tax the rich thing. I think the rich pay 45% of all the taxes that are, that are out there and they're 10% or 5% of the population. I mean, if we want to move to socialism, we can. 

‍

Daniel Newman: Watch the exodus in New York. It's coming.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: It is, it is. And it does get, does get equalized. You know, Paris put a monster tax and pretty much anybody with any money just boot up. And I don't know why they would stay but, we'll see. Hey, let's jump into the next topic here. And you know, Oracle stock popped after in a filing they talked about a 30 billion dollar annual cloud deal for, for IaaS. And this is for Oracle fiscal year 2028. And if you look at this $30 billion, you compare that to Oracle's total infrastructure revenue in 2025 I think was around 10 billion. So this is one deal, the biggest deal and they didn't say who it was. But I think you have to kind of be brain dead to not think this is OpenAI with, with Stargate, the $500 billion program that was announced I think in January of this year. And I just want to stand back and I just literally I can't believe how strong Oracle is right now. You know they were, you know first they were pigeonholed as a legacy database play. Right. And then they added a bunch of applications. Some were homegrown, some were acquired and then oh, they're a legacy enterprise SaaS company. Okay. And then as, as we enter the AI age and then you know, Larry just basically turns on a dime and gets them into a super strong IX business which is just staggering. And you know while companies like IBM were escaping that business and you know early even on you had companies like HPE and Dell who were flirting with standing up their own cloud services. And here they are coming in into a market that you thought would be too late to enter and they're entering with some vigor and, and fury. So I don't think there's done yet. I mean G42 opportunity, you've got tick tock as a possibility. But this was one customer, a 30 billion dollar deal. Bravo Oracle.

‍

Daniel Newman: Yeah, I mean so much winning. I know we've got a bunch more topics. I posted a bunch of things on X. I think there's a bit of a theme of what's old is new again. You know I've shared something. IBM has outgrown four Mag 7 companies in the market and not, not on growth but on actual stock valuation. Oracle is a total renaissance right now. We're going to talk about HPE which just got a huge lift in this Juniper deal. Cisco's hit all time highs. I know we love talking about the net, the nouveau Pat, but like some of these old tech names are finding their. And Oracle is freaking cool again. I mean that stock is ripping. I mean it's, it's gosh, we were talking about it when it was like 70 bucks, it's like tripled. We were saying it was a good buy then. I mean again we're not, we're not making buy recommendations but we were saying like there's a bright future here.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Totally. Daniel, you've been talking a lot about. I know you don't invest directly into clients but you know you do participate in fintechs. Both fintech stocks and both Robinhood and SoFi crushed it.

‍

Daniel Newman: Yeah, I'll hit this real quickly. I, I don't talk, I don't talk the, I talk my book when it's companies we don't advise. So I don't advise. We don't have a Fintech practice. I think the, the sort of deregulation, the just overall retail market investment interest right now has created this incredible thesis. I mean Robinhood has just been absolutely flying. I bought it at around 30 bucks less than like three months ago. It's $100 yesterday. They're tokenizing companies like OpenAI and, and SpaceX and making them available indirectly for investors to invest in their future. Just doing all kinds of incredibly cool stuff with Crypto so far is my largest position. I've been bullish on it a long time. I think the democratization of finance. No, not going into banks anymore. Making all your banking available in an app. They just relaunched their Crypto products. They ripped up 37 in the last month by the way. Not even close to the all time highs back from the specific craze. So, but I'm very optimistic Pat. So in this particular space, you know, just a bit of talk in my book, I saw, you know, I pounded the table about Robinhood. I said this is going to take off. I, we see what our kids think about how they want to get involved in markets and invest and this company's kicking, the bank's not, not so much so by yet but Robinhood absolutely is so fascinating stuff, you know, something to keep your eyes on.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, let's move to a really big deal here. And this is the finality of the HPE Juniper acquisition. $14 billion acquisition. DOJ put up the stop sign up there. They made some concessions but, but it is on. We, youm and I both, had a great chance to talk with Antonio. You know my first observation and hopefully you can pick up the pod. The last podcast was wait, why did they talk about networking first? Right. Did they think this deal was going to go down but it just didn't make it in underneath the wire and you know you were astute on the previous pod, right? Saying “Hey, in our interview Antonio said we are a networking company,” Right? And I didn't think much about that. And then boom. I think it was on last Friday. Right. It comes down, it gets, it gets approved or maybe it was even over the weekend. But you know, check out the coverage of, of the discussion that we had with Antonio at the show, but also tune into some of the papers and articles that our analysts have written about that. So very, very quickly, what does this mean? First of all, I think we have a competitive alternative to Cisco. The combined companies are very strong on the edge, very strong in service providers and very strong in Wifi everywhere. But also they have very good capabilities for AI, things like Mist and a few things that Aruba was working on. And we might have a competitive alternative to Cisco. So, you know, Core switch, enterprise data centers, Cisco absolutely dominates. Right? Both these companies, they have single digit market share right now. So I'm not thinking about enterprise data center, core Switch at this point. The other thing that Antonio made in the conference call this week that I had attended with Rami, the former CEO of Juniper and now head of HPE Networking, what came up was this, “Hey, we have storage, we have compute and we have networking. We have a full stack of software. We are absolutely the easy button here folks for AI.” And I never heard them really lean into it this much. And in the back of my head I thought about this, Daniel, Cisco getting back into the compute game. You know was this, that they found the business model, was this a competitive potential reaction to, to these two companies coming together? Were they some. A little bit of, of both. But yeah, I think it is interesting. I think we have more competition now, particularly the closer we get into the data center. We are compressing edge players for sure where, where both companies played. But I like the words that they're using and really no details and how, how the two product lines are going to come together. But this is definitely a new age for HPE. And let's not forget the success, I mean the success that HPE had with Aruba. If you saw the 50 growth in certain quarters, a complete, complete winner there. Other HPE, you know, I guess I can't. You know, a decade ago they made some pretty awful acquisitions when it was HP that I can't count against the company. But we'll see.

‍

Daniel Newman: Yeah, so I'm going to just double down what I said about what's old is new. There is a huge opportunity. Pat, we kind of talked about with sovereign clouds, we've talked about, you know, old enterprises that are just barely getting moving with AI needing to connect to public clouds. I'm probably still a little more bullish on public clouds growth than I am about some of the OEMs and the ability to build private data centers. But there's still massive amounts of work to do. This is not like, oh, we're just going to pivot everything over. That's been wrong since the beginning. It'll be even wronger during the AI era. And by the way, we got to move network, we got to move data and move traffic. Not all of it's going to be on optical super high speed backbones like Envy Link or, you know, we're going to need to do it with a lot of copper as well, because that's just really the reality of what enterprise data centers, enterprise it stacks look like. This was great for, for hpe. It was stupid in my opinion, that the FTC held this up. This just was not that monopolistic or risky. It's a bad use of resources, in my opinion. You know, I keep saying, why don't you look at the App Store? That'd be something I'd spend your time on, you know, but, but overall, this is super bullish. This is a place that they can compete. And I think you made one really astute comment, which is everyone's moving towards everyone else's lunch, so Cisco's gonna move more towards compute. You know, they're, you know, you're gonna see HPE. They're doubling down on now security and networking. I mean, it's like we're all kind of finding stasis here. It was a great one. I'm, I'm really happy for Antonio. It was good that we caught him right before this happened. You could sort of see a twinkle in his eye. I think he kind of knew, actually between us, that it was about to happen.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: He, he had to, he would have had to have signed the agreement with the DOJ and he probably already did.

‍

Daniel Newman: Yeah, there was something that, you know, you just kind of saw it like, like a confidence that you don't have unless you know.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: So anyways, normally people, normally people tell us like, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. So maybe not. I mean, people tell us everything before, before it's public, you know, I think we know.

‍

Daniel Newman: So anyway. Well, I've got to add on that one. I, you know, I've pretty much got a wrap here, so I got, I got work to go do.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Yeah. I want to thank everybody for tuning in. Episode 266 hit that subscribe button. Be part of the community. Check out everything we did with Six Five Summit. I know you will learn something. I know. Doing a lot of those videos, I learned a lot. And again, I hope you all had a great Fourth of July, the true Liberation Day. Take care.

‍

Daniel Newman: Happy birthday, America. I love this country. Go, capitalism.

‍

Patrick Moorhead: Yeah.

‍