NYC rejects far-left mayoral candidates, new developments in lab leak theory, Apple's App Store breakup potential & more

Opening banter: one speaker says he gets panic attacks at the dentist and sweated through half his shirt, though the dentist talked him through it. Others tease him, and he jokes that the dentist is his Achilles heel and traces the fear to a bad childhood experience, comparing it to the film Marathon Man.

The host then opens episode 37, noting that Chamath is calling in from a castle somewhere in Europe on what is described as a crusade, and that David Sacks and David Friedberg are the two other regulars. The ASR transcript is noisy here, so some phrases around the introduction are unclear.

The hosts joke about the group chat, where one participant told another to "fuck off". A speaker says that robots arguing with each other must be the singularity, and another quips that the second speaker has no emotions. One remark, as the source has it, is that someone was drinking a beverage with 14% alcohol content.

One speaker says he thinks the show's format is working and does not need to be turned on its head. Another explains to listeners that the group text is where the hosts do their minimal rehearsal, and that the rest of their conversation happens off-air. The numbers he gives for how long they talk are garbled in the transcript.

One host says the group had been debating a group Q&A format, which Sacks dislikes. By his account, Sacks likes to collect sound bites and turn them into short video clips with a fan he calls Henry Bellcaster, then promote them on Twitter. This is that host's characterisation of Sacks's habits.

In his own view, the show should not chase sound bites. It should elevate the conversation and give people multiple viewpoints and data so they can decide for themselves. He argues that the Twitter and social media era is reductionist, squeezing issues into a single sentence or 140 characters that serve as an emotional pivot to push people to one side.

A speaker recounts a reply attributed to Sacks, in which humans need to be led and are "sheeple"; the transcript garbles the rest of the sentence and it is unclear how seriously it is meant. Another speaker then announces a segment in which Chamath does a dramatic reading from the group chat, playing every character, starting with himself.

In the reading, the Sacks character says not to mess with the show's format because if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and tells Friedberg to fuck off. The speakers talk over each other, and one of them asks whether he will get a chance to respond.

A speaker says Friedberg's position on many issues often boils down to the claim that an issue is too complicated and too new for a definitive take. He rejects that. He grants it may be true for some issues and that conversation is valuable, but says on many issues it is possible to come down strongly on one side.

He adds that he thinks the audience wants the hosts to give their point of view, and that tabling every issue is a bit of a cop out. In his telling, he did not seek out the fan video-maker; the fan found them.

A speaker describes how Henry, one of the show's super fans, began making videos. He ignored the first ten, then got curious about why the fan was spending so much time on them. Henry now runs the videos past the hosts as a courtesy, but chooses the takes and assembles them himself. The transcript becomes fragmentary as others comment on how involved each host is in the edits.

Asked whether the fan is being paid, a speaker says he learned that Henry and a partner, named in the transcript as Dylan, run this as a business. He suggested they make product or startup videos, starting with one for Call In, for which he says they will pay something like $5 (the figure is as given in the transcript). He says he wants them to succeed.

A speaker argues that the group of four already contains hard takes. But on many topics there is more than one side, and understanding the counterarguments is critical to helping people reach an opinion themselves rather than being told that a single point is the one to believe.

The speaker argues that many debates are two sides of the same coin and that zooming out often reveals shared values. Where values truly differ, he says, that makes people different rather than evil. He sees the good-versus-evil, us-versus-them framing as something missing from society today.

He says he agrees with Sacks on nearly everything on the show, which can become echo-chambery, so he likes to highlight other viewpoints. He has strongly held opinions of his own but does not think they are worth stating without the broader context. One speaker then jokes that he got a little emotional, while another says he was tuned out and on his iPhone.

A host tries to wrap up the topic, admitting that the exchange has been in the dugout and may be boring for listeners. He asks whether the speaker holds back opinions on the show out of fear of being cancelled or of hurting his business, as he says happened to David's business. The reply is that he does not care about that and cares more about the path to an opinion. This is the speaker's own account.

A speaker clarifies that he cares more about achieving the objective than about the process. In his view, simply stating an opinion and saying take it or leave it does not change the minds of people who disagree. Laying out the broad facts and why different groups hold different views, he argues, makes it easier for people to see a better path forward. A second speaker says he holds opinions too but does not think stating them changes anyone's mind.

The host moderating the exchange calls for an end to it, saying the hosts can walk and chew gum at the same time. In his own assessment, Sacks has strong opinions that are weakly held, and Friedberg is good at explaining things; he considers both additive. He says he supports a nuanced conversation, while arguing that the fan's one-minute clips distilled from 30-minute conversations help more people hear the hosts' takes.