SPACs tumble, the education tech market and the future of automation

Kara Swisher: Not all journalism is the same. Take The Guardian. Our coverage has something unique. Fierce independence. Nobody owns us or tells us what we can and can't say. So we're free to report the whole picture. We connect what's happening in Washington to the rest of the globe. Expose corruption wherever we find it. And give fresh perspective on everything. From wellness and soccer to culture, the climate and more. Read, watch and listen to The Guardian for free at theguardian.com.

Kara Swisher: AI agents are getting pretty impressive. You might not even realize you're listening to one right now. We work 24-7 to resolve customer inquiries. No hold music, no canned answers, no frustration. Visit sierra.ai to learn more.

Kara Swisher: Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.

Scott Galloway: And this is Megan Markle. No, it's not. Come on. Is it Megan or Megan? Megan? Megan Markle. Meg, as Harry calls her.

Kara Swisher: I've been consuming all this Harry, Meghan content a lot. I did. It was interesting because my son was downstairs watching the NBA All-Stars or whatever. They were doing all kinds of beeswax down there. And he was screaming from downstairs every time Steph Curry made some sort of three-pointer type of thing. And then I watched the entire with Amanda, who was not that interested in Meghan Markle and Harry. But I got her to watch it, and she liked it a lot, I think. She didn't seem to be interested in it. But it was a big splash for Paramount Plus, which is CBS All Access. It was a big plus for CBS. It had, I think, 17 million. Oprah can really still bring it when she needs to.

Scott Galloway: Oh, my gosh. She's incredible. I thought for a minute she wasn't going to bring it, but she brings it.

Kara Swisher: I didn't watch it.

Scott Galloway: I think they should have renamed the episode "White Lives Don't Matter." I just think this is literally, I think these are some of the most boring people on the planet.

Kara Swisher: No, you're wrong. Oh, my gosh. It's porn. It's like, let's trade my celebrity and talk shit and trade secrets. I didn't even watch this thing and I watched it. Why do we need to protect The Crown? The Crown is already like a successful TV show.

Scott Galloway: Oh, The Crown is wonderful. We love The Crown. Well, season seven's going to be lit when you listen to this interview, let me just say. It doesn't sound very pretty there over at Buckingham.

Kara Swisher: It's trading in on celebrity they have not created. So what? Big deal. So what? God save the queen. Why do you like The Crown and not this? Tell me why.

Scott Galloway: Why do I like The Crown?

Kara Swisher: Because it's really quite fictional, according to many people who live the town.

Scott Galloway: I don't doubt that, but it's good fiction. I just don't like people trading off celebrity they inherit. I don't like the Trump kids who have done nothing themselves, who have accomplished nothing themselves. And I don't – it's unfair. Maybe you can tell me about anything these two have accomplished on their own, but I feel like it's just porn.

Kara Swisher: Well, she's been an actress. She was on a relatively successful TV show.

Scott Galloway: Yes. She was on Suits. She was fine.

Kara Swisher: She was on Suits. No, but it was a successful show. Are you on a successful show? I'm sorry. I would draw everything I've said. No. She was on Suits. 17 million people disagree with you that this is interesting.

Scott Galloway: Well, that's my point. By the way, the point she was making during the interview was how much the tabloids in Britain have this deal with the crown, with Buckingham Palace. To like they have parties for them and they trade access for behavior, like not attacking certain members of the crown, like Prince Andrew, for example. Let me just say, the crown is already doing this. So I don't know why you're all hot and bothered about Harry.

Kara Swisher: Well, you know Harry, you know the story about Harry. When he was born, they were going to name him up so they could call the family up, chuck and die.

Scott Galloway: Oh my God. That's good royalty humor.

Kara Swisher: Or they were going to call him, actually the second name they had for him was Shamu. So they were calling him Shamu Prince of Wales.

Scott Galloway: Oh my God. That's good royalty humor. That is not good. Let me just say. You liked it? You thought it was well done?

Kara Swisher: I did because I think this – first of all, the crown is wrapped up in the tabloids already. And they have deals and everything else the way that works in Britain. It's a whole little economy. So I don't think there's anything wrong with these two cashing in on it. That's uno. Dose, his mother died in a paparazzi accident. Like, come on. Like, she was being chased by paparazzi.

Scott Galloway: Well, that's not fair to pull that out. That's not fair to pull that out. What does that have to do with Oprah interviewing him and then moving to L.A. and going to Soho House all the time?

Kara Swisher: They discussed, like, because one of the topics discussed was how much she didn't play the game and got attacked for her race. And there was a whole, go look at the things of Kate Middleton, who's perfectly nice, and her. Kate Middleton's pregnant, holds her belly. They're like, isn't this beautiful? She holds her belly and she's got a weird obsession with her.

Scott Galloway: You're conflating.

Kara Swisher: No, I'm not conflating. Princess Diana and their, whether they're nice or not. And basically these folks cashing in on, again, celebrity based on other people's discretion and also their commitment to their nation and the crown.

Scott Galloway: You love that crown, don't you? You think the crown is all that?

Kara Swisher: I think it's all been a scam the whole time. I was a dual citizen. I was a British citizen for a short time. You have to like the queen. They were nice to the queen during this interview, just so you know. The queen didn't get touched.

Scott Galloway: Well, they're not stupid. I mean, who's not going to be nice to the queen? I kind of believe the queen is one of the most, I think, respected or well-liked people in the world over the age of 105 or whatever she is now.

Kara Swisher: Perhaps. It's not that many. I thought it was, look, let me just say it was a huge, huge hit for Oprah. Enormous, I heard. Let's talk about Oprah. Oprah, once again, does a fantastic job. Unbelievable. Someone was just pointing, there were so many good tweets about the whole thing. That was my favorite part. It was like Oprah just restarted the War of 1812. Everyone was waiting for black Twitter to go against UK Twitter because she was talking about racial issues quite a bit, including someone asking about the color of her baby skin and stuff. So I thought it was just good entertainment.

Scott Galloway: That's what I said. At the end of the day, it's what I would call is it's anything about these two. It's a palate cleanser for anything of substance. So, okay, I'm sick of hearing about the pandemic. I'm sick of hearing about what the Biden administration is doing. I know. I'll watch Meghan and Harry and talk about their new home in the Hollywood Hills.

Kara Swisher: Good for them. They live in Santa Barbara, in case you're interested.

Scott Galloway: They live in Santa Barbara?

Kara Swisher: That's right. They live in Santa Barbara.

Scott Galloway: I just want to throw it out there and call this the Super Bowl for millennial women. Like, that's what it is.

Kara Swisher: Really? Oh, there's Rebecca. Thank you. I just need to throw it out there. Thank you. Rebecca, as usual, on my side. Correct, Rebecca? That's a shocker. Almost always. Almost always.

Scott Galloway: What do you mean? No, no, get rid of the word "almost" and we're accurate.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, yeah, that's right. Well, you know what? You missed the entertainment. Like, it was fun. I did watch it. I got to admit, I did watch it. It was so good. It was so good. Go watch your NBA All-Stars bullshit. Get out of here.

Scott Galloway: I'm sorry. The Millennial Super Bowl, does that mean it was very expectant and obnoxious and will decline in viewership 8% a year for the next 30 years?

Kara Swisher: Oh, no. Because it's Oprah. After the pod, I'm going to go watch it on Paramount+. Listen to me, Scott.

Scott Galloway: Okay, go ahead.

Kara Swisher: Oprah, it shows how good Oprah is. I'm with you. Oprah's a gangster. She's fantastic. This is why she was so—I learned a lot as an interviewer. So Megan would say, you know, someone was tweeting about this X, Y, Z, and then Oprah would go, X, Y, Z? So she'd feign like she was excited. She was in with them. Then she sort of challenged them. She's a genius. She's a frigging genius. She's very good. She's an inspiration. I love Oprah. I got to say, she's really good. She made some great entertainment. In any case. A billionaire who deserves to be a billionaire.

Scott Galloway: But anyway, my son was watching the NBA All-Stars. But the NBA created a blockchain. He does not care about this. He cares about Steph Curry and Three Pointers. But NBA created a blockchain advisory committee. And a friend of Pivot, Mark Cuban's involved, Ted Leonsis, Joe Psy from Alibaba. They'll determine how to leverage blockchain to benefit NBA's business. And now you can use Dogecoin to buy Mavericks merchandise. This is a slow news day. Why don't you and I create an Ethereum advisory committee for Vox? I mean, who the fuck cares? An advisory committee? That's news? Breaking news. A bunch of old white men are trying to act younger.

Kara Swisher: What are you interested in? What are you interested in? This is like the mother of all Botox. I know. Let's try and pretend we're younger and hipper with the young people and announce an advisory committee on Vox. Well, they did pass stimulus. What are you interested in, Scott Galloway? There's not a lot going on this week. I'm excited.

Scott Galloway: Oh, my God. What are you talking about? I think the SPAC meltdown is more interesting. We're going to go into that in our big story. We're going to go into our big story.

Kara Swisher: But is there any other interest to you?

Scott Galloway: Look, I'm a little bit forlorn. I'm a little bit.

Kara Swisher: Why? Why are you forlorn?

Scott Galloway: Why would I have my heart sort of broken today?

Kara Swisher: Oh, well, we'll get to that. Okay. Mackenzie Scott got married and it wasn't to you.

Scott Galloway: I am, honestly, honestly, I am genuinely happy for her. I think science teacher. Look at that. He looks nice, too. I am. She's so fantastic. Everything she's doing is like. Literally, she's a role model. You think to yourself, that's how I would want my kids to grow up and behave. I don't know. She just, I'm just, you know, I mean this sincerely. I read it and I'm like, I haven't been this happy for a famous person in a long, long time. She is doing it right. She's living her best life. Finding happiness. She's living her best life, giving away money, being her own person.

Kara Swisher: That was a really nice story. I thought that was like, oh, my God, when's the last time I opened TMZ and was happy?

Scott Galloway: Yeah. Like page six.

Kara Swisher: Oh, my God, I'm happy. When does that happen after you reach page six? When does that happen? When does that happen? I don't know. Here's one good thing. CDC guidelines say people who are vaccinated can hang out with other people who are vaccinated indoors and just breathe all over each other. They're not tremendously concerned about more infection. That's good.

Scott Galloway: That is good. I think that's really nice. You can have restaurants of just vaccinated people like yourself.

Kara Swisher: I'm so sick of hearing about restaurants. Jesus Christ. By the way, 27 million, 27 million, the National Restaurant Foundation got for restaurants, but not all schools are open.

Scott Galloway: Yeah. Thank God. Johnny's Taqueria is going to stay open. I just don't get the whole restaurant thing. This is not the Hunger Games. I just don't get the whole restaurant time.

Kara Swisher: In any case, there's no perfect answer in this situation. Anyway, we're going to big stories now, something you'll be happy about. SPACs are falling. The SPAC index fell 20% since February peak. This is a technical definition of a bear market. As a reminder, SPACs are special purpose acquisition companies. Essentially, but we like the word SPAC. Essentially, a shell company set up by investors for the purpose of raising money through an IPO, and then they back a company into it. They've become the dominant way for a company to raise equity finance this year. Over 200 new SPACs have raised $70 billion in 2020. Meanwhile, one of the most prominent SPAC holders, he has other SPACs, by the way, Chamath Paliha Patia, faced backlash last week after filing showed that he had sold his entire personal stake in Virgin Galactic, which he took public as a SPAC, one of the very earliest ones. So what do you think, Scott? What's going on? Tell me about SPACs if you don't want to talk about important things like Megan and Harry.

Scott Galloway: We're going to look back on SPACs the same way we looked back on the dot-com or dot-bomb, and that is a lot of them are just overvalued. But it's a new financing mechanism. It's an interesting way. It's an old one that's become new.

Kara Swisher: Well, but it's got in the first 17 days of 2021, there were more SPACs raised than in all of 2019.

Scott Galloway: Right, but it had been something that had been around. But go ahead. And this is essentially, I think, of everything through the lens now of dispersion because I'm hoping to get into the Urban Dictionary.

Kara Swisher: Is the guy who read in Dispersion. Is that your next book called Dispersion?

Scott Galloway: My next book is called The Algebra of Wealth.

Kara Swisher: Oh, right. Okay. Strategies on Personal and Economic Satisfaction. You just churn these books out.

Scott Galloway: I like to write.

Kara Swisher: You do?

Scott Galloway: I like to write. So anyways. Write my book for me. What are you talking about? Spacks. Spacks. So anyways, but it is the dispersion of investment banking, and that is companies and operators, and there's some very talented operators doing these things, have said, okay, we don't need the investment committee of Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs to tell us who should be a public company. We'll go public and we'll add a lot of operating muscle and tensile strength to a good private company and boom, just add water. It's public and reflects a few things. One, never underestimate the market's ability to come up with a product when people have cash in hand. Sort of the analogy I used was when it starts raining, there's an umbrella for sale every six feet in Manhattan and I'm like, where did this guy come from? Where are these umbrellas, where are they hiding these things? Anyways, it is, a lot are gonna go out of vogue. A lot are overvalued, but I do think for the first time these things are here to stay.

Kara Swisher: Here to stay. So you're sort of SPAC positive.

Scott Galloway: I mean, there's what I'd call the bearded lady and the world's strongest man inside the tent. And then there's the guy in front of the tent saying, come on in, come on in. And Chamath has done, you can call him a storyteller, a visionary, P.T. Barnum, but he has been the face for SPACs. And he was early. He got them done early. He was visionary about it. But when you sell your entire stake – to be fair, it's not his entire stake because he has a company that owns other shares in. But when you sell $200 million in one day of your – there's just no getting around it. It's a negative forward-looking indicator that an individual who understands his company fairly well and understands the market, he's a great investor. Maybe he's buying NFTs. Maybe he's doing that. But go ahead.

Kara Swisher: Well, this was the ultimate jujitsu move, I thought, on his part. He said, well, I'm still committed to their mission despite selling a quarter of a billion dollars in stock. But I'm taking the money to reinvest in climate change. That's like saying, well, if he decides to bail on the shares of his other SPACs, is it going to be to cure cancer? I thought that was an interesting kind of acrobatics or gymnastics to try and turn chicken shit into chicken salad. But it ended up, just that one sale, the whole market went, well, if Chamath, if the king of SPACs has decided to leave the kingdom and go on Oprah and talk about how much the kingdom sucks, then something's wrong. And the whole space, and it's not his fault, but all you need is an excuse for a space that's overvalued to begin leaking value.

Scott Galloway: Yes, people have been nervous about SPACs. No question. So, look, certain SPACs have raised the money, and they have to either use it or lose it, right?

Kara Swisher: Yeah, two years.

Scott Galloway: Two and a half years, two years.

Kara Swisher: Two years.

Scott Galloway: So, the ones that exist are going to have to back themselves into a bunch of companies.

Kara Swisher: Oh, I mean, you don't want to talk, but there's now something like 150.

Scott Galloway: Right, looking for. And now I add, if it's $150 billion searching, it's really more like half a trillion because they typically do stable on financing or a pipe. So there just aren't that many great private companies. So there people wandering around You going to see SPACs start to go abroad You going to see them going to Latin America and Europe But basically there too much capital looking for good private companies here And then there's all that venture capital. There's a lot of capital. There's going to be a special lot of spending going to be happening in the next few months, I think.

Kara Swisher: So what does it say about the IPO landscape in general?

Scott Galloway: That's a good question. I think that it's bifurcating and that is people have been saying or the easy – the kind of easy narrative is, well, this hurts investment banks because now there's new investment bankers. No, it's not. Goldman and Morgan Stanley are taking SPACs public, taking their 7 percent. And there's definitely a bifurcation and that is investment banks, Goldman and Morgan Stanley. Everything distills down to one dynamic in our society, Kara.

Kara Swisher: Which is?

Scott Galloway: iOS and Android. And iOS is the premium kind of higher end, more aspirational, cost more positioning, luxury positioning. And Android is for the masses. And it works really well and is almost just as good, 80% of the value of iOS for 0% of the price. And essentially what you have now is SPACs that go public. And then you have companies that go public through JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman. And quite frankly, they're just of a higher quality. And so iOS is the companies that choose to go public the old-fashioned way and everybody says everybody complains VCs though they screwed up they got a huge pop they left money on the table it's a branding event if your company goes up 30 50 100 you're not getting you didn't lose 50 of your net worth usually they only take 10 of the shares public so if you underpriced it then you lost 5 for what is the branding event that you will never have again because you're on the cover of every business store the next day saying, you know, Coursera, which is filed to go public, up 40%. So, they purposely, it's an ecosystem where everyone sort of wins. And that is, okay, the initial shareholders complain that they left money on the table. Sort of not really because of the branding event. And also, the investment bank gets to give a pop to their clients. It's a big ecosystem. So, these SPACs will find homes and they will find companies back into them.

Kara Swisher: And then these IPO landscapes, what? There's just more public companies? Or some are questionable? Or they'll find shitty companies?

Scott Galloway: We're catching up. There's been a dearth of IPOs, and the number of companies publicly traded in the last 30 years has been cut in half. So you could argue that this is just a regression to the mean, and there'll be more publicly traded companies. I would say somewhere between a third and two-thirds of SPACs will trade below their offering price. We're already getting there. We're already starting to see the SPAC index come back to where they went public at. But it's definitely – I think the mechanism as a form of fundraising is definitely here to stay. This is an innovation that's working. It will not be quite this firmer.

Kara Swisher: Well, if you look at the economic history of SPACs, they typically underperform the market because the investment committees at Morgan and Goldman are smart and can pick from the best companies.

Scott Galloway: Pick of the litter.

Kara Swisher: That's right. There's a lot of litter going on here. That's right. What do you think?

Scott Galloway: I think there won't be as much fundraising and everyone and their mother won't have a SPAC like everything else, just like sub stacks or podcasts or anything. Everyone all rushes into things and then they rush right out. Like, you know, audio, everything, everything. And this is just the same thing. And they'll run out of really good things to do and some of them will do well and some of them won't. But it's certainly an easier way for a lot of companies to go public for sure. And we'll see where that goes. Whether they should be public is another question.

Kara Swisher: You just said almost nothing.

Scott Galloway: I didn't.

Kara Swisher: You just said almost nothing. You conditioned everything. You literally conditioned everything. It would be impossible for you to be wrong with what you just said. No. Like anything else, it overvalued it. It could rain. It might not. It could rain. It might not. It's neither here nor there. There will not continue to raise as much capital. Some of these companies will do badly because they aren't as good at picking things like you said. I just got very self-conscious.

Scott Galloway: You know how I'm self-conscious?

Kara Swisher: You did. You got mean there. That's okay. Of course, it's International Women's Day and you attack a woman, but that's okay. All right, Scott. Let's go to a quick break.

Scott Galloway: That is, oh, by the way, that's entirely fair. That's entirely fair. You know what? I look forward to a day. I feel very aggrieved. I look forward to a time, Kara, when we don't need an International Woman's Day. I feel unsafe. I look forward. I feel unsafe in this relationship. I feel unsafe. I feel unsafe. I feel unsafe. I look forward to an age when we don't have to have an International Woman's Day. But anyways.

Kara Swisher: Oh, my God. And by the way, I'm self-conscious.

Scott Galloway: Well, that would be nice. That would be nice. I'm not only self-conscious now about.

Kara Swisher: We had equal rights under the law. Same thing for everybody else except white guys.

Scott Galloway: About you saying I'm mean and not nice to women, which will always stick when you say that about me. You know what I'm really self-conscious about?

Kara Swisher: We have to go to a break.

Scott Galloway: Well, hold on, hold on. I have all this. I tell you I'm self-conscious. I don't care.

Kara Swisher: You don't care.

Scott Galloway: I'm self-conscious. I have all this family.

Kara Swisher: Oh, feign interest. Go ahead. Tell me about it.

Scott Galloway: I have all this family. No, do what Oprah does.

Kara Swisher: What?

Scott Galloway: You're insecure? You're what? You're self-conscious? Oprah would move it right along.

Kara Swisher: I have all this family. Oprah would move you along.

Scott Galloway: I have all this family in London and Glasgow, And I'm worried my comments were supportive of the crown, right? They're not going to be mad at me.

Kara Swisher: Of course. Okay, good. I'm fine. I'm fine. Good. There's not a queen you don't love. Anyway, we'll go to a quick break. When we get back, we'll talk about the future of education tech. And then we'll be joined by New York Times tech columnist Kevin Roos, who has a new book called Future Proof.

[Ad Break]

Kara Swisher: Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start? Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin? Or what that clunking sound from your dryer is? With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app. Download today.

Kara Swisher: Support for Pivot comes from LinkedIn. From talking about sports, discussing the latest movies, everyone is looking for a real connection to the people around them. But it's not just person-to-person. It's the same connection that's needed in business. And it can be the hardest part about B2B marketing, finding the right people, making the right connections. But instead of spending hours and hours scavenging social media feeds, you can just tap LinkedIn ads to reach the right professionals. According to LinkedIn, they have grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys. You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company roles, seniority skills, and company revenue, giving you all the professionals you need to reach in one place. So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right professionals only on LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn will even give you $100 credit on your next campaign so you can try it for yourself. Just go to linkedin.com slash pivotpod. That's linkedin.com slash pivotpod. Terms and conditions apply. Only on LinkedIn ads.

[End of Ad Break]

Kara Swisher: Okay, Scott, we're back. Let's talk about your area of expertise, education tech. Coursera is among the education tech companies going public this week. And then your company, Section 4, has raised $30 million. Speaking of not enough rad holes to shove all the cash down, your company, Section 4, has raised $30 million.

Scott Galloway: I appreciate your support, Kira. Full disclosure. We were just about to ask you to go on the advisory board of our rad hole.

Kara Swisher: No, thank you. I don't do any advisory boards.

Scott Galloway: No, you're too pure.

Kara Swisher: Explain to us, yes, I am, why you think education tech is the next big thing. Please illuminate us on what you're doing there. And what do you think about Coursera, too, and all these education tech?

Scott Galloway: So, look, tuition up 1,400%. The upward lubricant of the middle class in America has been accessed to cheap, great education. It's now become the caste system where we enforce on people. We say you're either the children of rich people or freakishly remarkable or you don't get into a great school. And my cohort has become drunk on luxury and brag about turning away 95% of our applicants. And the result is a transfer of wealth of $1.5 trillion, middle-class households to the endowments and pockets of administrators. So there is the mother of all chins hanging out there. My company, Section 4, is very straightforward. I think the scarcest product in the world, and when I see scarcity, I mean value relative to the number of people the product is available to, is the American MBA. It's a global brand. It is transformative. Kids who come into the Haas School of Business at Berkeley are making $70,000. When they leave, they're making $140,000 24 months later. It is transformative. And unfortunately, the total market for graduate MBAs full-time is about 8,000 people a year. If you are one of the 66% of America that doesn't get a college degree, not accessible. If you're one of the 99% of America that can't take half a million dollars in investment and lost income, you're shit out of luck. If you're, say, have a kid at home or you're a single mom, there is no opportunity for you or you've collected things like dogs and spouses. So what our vision is we want to make it accessible. It's 10 percent of the price and 1 percent of the friction.

Kara Swisher: Education. Well, by the way, I want to ask, one, you're at NYU, so you're kind of playing against your business.

Scott Galloway: Biting the hand that feeds me.

Kara Swisher: Biting the hand that feeds you.

Scott Galloway: I've returned my compensation for the last decade, so they're no longer feeding me.

Kara Swisher: All right. So you just said, like, screw you. Enough virtue signaling.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, okay. All right. Go ahead.

Kara Swisher: So, when you think about this, education kind of has failed us during the pandemic. It's been a really bad experience, I think, for everybody. And this idea of analog education or analog people going to school, people seem to, that's the one thing. Telework, I see. Telehealth, I see. It's continuing. But teleeducation just hasn't been as great as it could be. So, how do you justify that? What do you think has happened?

Scott Galloway: It's not either or. The jig is up. A lot of people have realized that they're paying $59,000 for a streaming video platform called Harvard when it's online.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. And also, it's where are we headed?

Scott Galloway: The same way we're headed with the opposite. It's not going to be all remote. But the dirty secret of every professor is the following. We have two or three good jokes. And what I mean by jokes is we have two or three real insights that our research has provided or produced. And we stretch it out over 36 podium hours in 12 weeks such that our host institution can charge $7,000 or $8,000 for those 12 weeks.

Kara Swisher: You have just two things to say, really?

Scott Galloway: Well, I generally believe, and the model of our framework is the following. In two to three weeks, with intensity, team groups, a bunch of TAs, live streams, videos, we can get 70% to 80% of the intellectual property across to you for, again, 10% of the price and 1% of the friction.

Kara Swisher: Google's certificates, too. Which I'm super excited about, and I keep hearing nothing about. Which people tweeted back at us.

Scott Galloway: No, no, no, you aren't paying attention. They said stay tuned.

Kara Swisher: Stay tuned, yes. We're tuned in.

Scott Galloway: But it's coming. I'm ready.

Kara Swisher: We're tuned in. Okay. I'm ready. But anyways, you're right. But where I was headed with this is it's not going to all remote because you're right. Remote, it's not – there's something to the electricity, but the dirty secret of higher ed is the following. Half our classes, half our classes where there's not a lot of interaction could be done synchronously. I'm not saying videos, but synchronously online and lower costs. And what do you do? You take UCLA back to 60% admittance instead of where it is 12%. And by the way, their applications are up 28%. Meaning the kids of single parents, not remarkable, are no longer getting the same access to opportunities that you and me got 30 years ago. So big tech, small tech, online learning, a mix. It's a mix. It's not zero one. It's a hybrid. It's some on campus.

Kara Swisher: Tell me what you think of analog. Are you back in school? Are you back in teaching?

Scott Galloway: I will be in the fall.

Kara Swisher: Okay.

Scott Galloway: There's a magic and a mystery to being in a classroom, Greek-style theater, seeing people's emotions. It's fantastic. But you could have 95% of that with six of those classes in person and then six online, and then we can lower the cost and increase the admissions rates.

Kara Swisher: So what's the 6% that's in line? What's the 6% that's in person?

Scott Galloway: When you say the 6% on our – oh, the six sessions.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, what should be the real live analog session?

Kara Swisher: Where you have the key sessions that are important, and there are a lot of them, is when you have interaction with the students. And it's the bumping up against your students where you say, okay, should Datsun have become Nissan? Why was it good? Why was it bad? Should Google have launched YouTube? I mean, there's fantastic learning there, but there's also a lot of classes where you're basically just lecturing, and they don't need to haul their ass to Soho or to Palo Alto or to Ann Arbor, and also it scales really well.

Scott Galloway: Online scale. I taught 160 kids. I teach 160 kids in person because guess what? That's the biggest classroom at Stern. But when I go online, I have 280 kids. So the question is how do we leverage, I'm not saying replace, but supplement online such that we can dramatically increase scale and stop this bullshit of thinking we're Hermes and realize we're public servants again, dramatically increase acceptance rates, dramatically decrease costs, and provide younger people with the same opportunity my generation had. And then get certified.

Kara Swisher: I don't know why I'm so angry. Why am I so angry?

Scott Galloway: You're very angry about this because you just raised $30 million in your ad hole. But let me ask, what do you think about K through 12, though? Seemingly problematic from a mental health person.

Kara Swisher: Why?

Scott Galloway: Look, I think the two are totally different. I think a 19-year-old taking half his classes at home or even trapped at home is a nuisance, but it's not a tragedy. A fourth grader needs, in my view, and I have experience with this. This is Pulse Marketing. I feel like I have some research background in higher ed, but none in K-12. But what I've noticed personally is when a fourth and a seventh grader are trapped at home and doing remote learning, your house can collapse. That it's incredible stress on the mother. And let's be honest, it's almost always the mother that picks up the slack. And kids need socialization. Kids need to make eye contact with their teacher. The college students don't. Not as much. Graduates. Not as much. You know why? Because the socialization, they'll do regardless of the class.

Kara Swisher: Well, essentially, so you're trying to put NYU out of business, I see. This is what's happening here. Is that correct?

Scott Galloway: I'm going to choose my words carefully here. No, I'm going to give stock to NYU. And NYU, actually, to their credit, they kind of embrace this stuff. Let me put it this way. I'll give you this. They're more generous and patient with me than I would be with me.

Kara Swisher: Yeah.

Scott Galloway: But they like this stuff. They've actually approved some professors teaching on it. They're trying to—they don't see it. And the reality is it's not competitive because I can't get you the certification that a top 20 NBA gets you and it's still incredibly powerful for all the shit you talk about.

Kara Swisher: And that what should happen. That the next shoe to drop, correct? Certification? Some sort of... well, that what Coursera is trying to do.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, Coursera, the original gangster here, has filed to go public. I think that's going to be—I don't know if it will get the pop, but I think it's going to be a fantastic stock to own. I should say that. I shouldn't say that in time to the valuation. But these guys are the original gangsters. They took a lot of arrows. They got a lot of mud on their face. They were the pioneers here. And I think it's really exciting that they're going public. Online education and capital really holds out the opportunity to move away from this bullshit artificial constraint of campus and self-aggrandizing arrogant administrators at universities and move it back to where it needs to be. And that is the greatest upward lubricant in the history of mankind. And that is higher ed that is affordable and lets in unremarkable kids and says, "You're unremarkable, but we're going to give you remarkable opportunities." We become totally drunk on the freakishly remarkable and rich people.

Kara Swisher: Does that bother you that I'm freakishly remarkable and you're unremarkable? That's my question.

Scott Galloway: I'm used to it. I'm used to it.

Kara Swisher: All right. This gets us in a perfect situation for our friend of Pivot. Kevin Roose is a tech columnist for the New York Times. He has a new book out called *Future Proof: Nine Rules for Humans in the Age of Automation*. It focuses a lot more on automation, but Kevin, you've just been listening to us. Welcome to the show.

Kevin Roose: Thank you for having me.

Kara Swisher: So talk a little bit about future. What do you think of what Scott's saying here? Does this fit into your future-proof situation where we have to proof ourselves? You're talking about automation most of the time, not online school, essentially.

Kevin Roose: Yeah, well, I think a lot of that is connected. I think what we're seeing now, and the reason I wrote this book, is because we've seen this huge influx of AI and automation into industry and higher education and journalism, and it's changing all of our jobs and requiring us all to adapt. And so I was freaked out because I was looking at my own future and thinking, what can I actually do to prepare for this? And I think, as Scott said, I think we've realized now that some parts of what we do are likely to be automated or taken online or disaggregated in some way. And so it's up to us to figure out how to deal with that.

Kara Swisher: Name some of the rules. Tell us what the rules are.

Kevin Roose: Well, there are nine rules in the book. The subtitle is *Nine Rules for Humans in the Age of Automation*. I wanted it to be more efficient than the Ten Commandments, so this is just nine. But yeah, there are basically three buckets of rules. And I won't list them all because that'll take forever. But basically, there are three buckets. One is how to future-proof your life at home, your brain, your personal life, your family life, how to future-proof your career, and how to future-proof your community.

Kara Swisher: All right, give us one from each.

Kevin Roose: The one that is for your own self is that you need to basically find things to do that are not going to be replaced by machines. I think we've been training people for the future entirely wrong. We've been teaching them to become more machine-like, to major in STEM, to become super efficient, to optimize and life hack their way to success. And I think we really need to focus on the more human skills that machines can't replace. I have three categories in the book of work that I think is unlikely to be automated soon: surprising, social, and scarce.

A career, one thing that I think you both have done very well is to leave handprints, which is to make yourself less of a cog in a machine, to make it clear that you are a human creating human work. One of the things I got from interviewing AI experts and economists for this book is that in the future, things that are done by machines will become very cheap and things that are done by humans will become more valuable.

Scott Galloway: Artisanal. We leave our dirty handprints, you know that. That's our thing.

Kevin Roose: I like that. There's a lot of literature showing that we actually value things more when we think that people had a real hand in creating them. And so that's something that people can do for their careers. And for your community, I mean, I think that the sort of what we teach children and what we teach ourselves as adults is really important here. I think that we need a kind of update to the curriculum that we've been teaching people now for 100 years, which is all about making people into effective workers in an economy that rewards things like output and productivity and efficiency rather than the more human traits that I think people are going to end up moving to as a result of AI and automation.

Kara Swisher: Scott?

Scott Galloway: Gosh, I love that, "leave handprints." So first off, and this is the most important question, although it's a bit of a digression, do you meditate?

Kevin Roose: I try. Yeah, I don't always succeed, but I try.

Scott Galloway: Because I can just hear in your voice, you have nice chi and center. We need to roll. We need to hang because my testosterone therapy has totally made me jumpy. So we'll talk after the show. But anyways, kudos to you. I can tell you're a centered person. I love that "hands-on." Let me ask you the following. My sense is we need a new approach that all capital sees labor that doesn't have a double E from MIT as a cost and a negative, as opposed to looking at people and trying to figure out how automation enhances human capital instead of replaces it. Don't we need a different mindset around robotics? Isn't the problem us, not the robots?

Kevin Roose: Absolutely, yeah. I mean, one of the key lessons of the book is that robots don't do anything on their own right now. I mean, people say robots are coming for the jobs, but it's really the executives at the Fortune 500 companies who are saying, "I want to shrink the accounting department by 200 heads," or "I need to squeeze out some more margin in next quarter's numbers, so I'm going to automate these jobs away." It's a really simplistic, really substitutive kind of automation that we're seeing a lot now. As I put it in a story yesterday for the Times, it's about replacing fill-in accounting rather than becoming a market leader, doing new dynamic things, developing new products. Economists call this "so-so automation." It's the kind that kind of sucks. It's like the automated customer service line that you're like, "I just want to press zero and get to a human. Please put me through to a human." That's the kind of automation we're seeing a lot in the corporate world right now. And that's the part that's really dangerous because that's not actually adding to human capability. That's not empowering workers. That's not developing new tools that are going to move the economy forward. It's purely substituting a machine for a human.

Scott Galloway: And what do you see as, what do you think the most exciting technology? I mean, robotics is, my understanding, is an amalgam or an alchemy of different technologies. What technology specifically do you think is driving the boom in robotics? And the reason I'm asking is what area, if people want to devote their human capital or financial capital, not only just to robotics, but what is—you know, it was the micro—it was Intel that drove the computing revolution, you could argue. And that was—Intel was a great stock to own. What are the technologies that are driving robotics right now?

Kevin Roose: Well, machine learning is the big one. I mean, that's the thing that is transforming automation from something that can do rote and repetitive work to something that can do more kinds of creative, sort of cognitive work. And that's what we're seeing now, is that people, I think, still conceive of AI and automation as this thing that's going to replace people in factories. And the thing is, the factories are largely automated already. That happened a long time ago. Now the robots are doing more kind of managerial tasks. There's some great research out from the Brookings Institution and Stanford about the fact that actually the people at most risk of replacement from AI are white-collar professionals in big metro areas who are doing sales projections and data analytics and those kinds of cognitive tasks that are done by people with college degrees who make a lot of money. That's not safe the way that we thought it was.

Kara Swisher: So when you think about that, this debate right now is over the $15 minimum wage. What happens to those jobs? Do you feel that they're at risk?

Kevin Roose: Certainly. I mean, retail is a big target of companies doing automation. We've already started to see some of that happening with the self-serve kiosks at fast food restaurants. Amazon just came online somewhere. Where was it? I just want a story. I think what worries me is less the threat of displacement for those workers, because I think some of that stuff is going to end up being surprisingly hard to automate. But it's using automation and AI to turn workers into human robots, essentially.

Kara Swisher: Such push-button, like at Amazon warehouses. Exactly.

Kevin Roose: So if you work at an Amazon warehouse, you are taking instructions from one algorithm, you're putting things into a box, you're wearing a bracelet that tracks your productivity, you can be fired if you miss your packing target. I mean, it's essentially, these jobs are kind of human robots. And I think that that's one of the cautionary tales.

Kara Swisher: And they have the arms to do it right now until they figure out arms that can do it better. Exactly.

Kevin Roose: And so those people should be concerned. But it's also like, there are ways that this can improve workers' lives, that people can be freed up from mundane, sort of bullshit tasks. And we're just not seeing enough of that right now. We're seeing, "I want to replace 10 people in accounts payable, so I'm going to buy this off-the-rack AI solution that can do that for me."

Kara Swisher: So should we work at all? There's all those movies where we just sit in chairs and eat, and then robots take care of it. Do you predict that's what's going to happen with automation? Is there any need for humans?

Kevin Roose: Yeah, I think there's definitely... Obviously there is, but...

Kara Swisher: There's definitely a need for humans. I'm not full dystopian, but I think that our jobs are going to change a lot. I think that right now a lot of people are employed in jobs that involve making things. And I think that the future of jobs are going to be jobs that involve making people feel things. It's going to be the kind of things that bring about human connection. It's not going to be enough to be a really good radiologist. You're going to have to have a good bedside manner, too, so that people have a reason to come to you rather than going to an AI.

Scott Galloway: And we were just talking about education. Do you see any thoughts around robotics as it relates to education and also health care?

Kevin Roose: Yeah, I mean, these are the areas that have been sort of resistant to automation. You know, we don't have robots teaching college classes, most of them.

Scott Galloway: Yet.

Kevin Roose: Yet. We don't have robot doctors, many of them yet, but that's coming. And I think that we need to stop educating people and telling them that they need to take on the machines head on to sort of compete with them like the old John Henry thing. And we need to start telling people what they can do that is not going to be disrupted by these forces. And that's a journey that I've been on, too. I mean, I'm a journalist at a newspaper. That's not like the most future-proof job in the world.

Kara Swisher: Wait, wait, why not? How are you getting replaced?

Kevin Roose: I'm too old. One of my first jobs in journalism was I covered finance and I wrote corporate earnings stories. "Alcoa made this much money last quarter in their smelting division," that kind of thing. That's largely been automated in just the last 10 years. Those jobs are few and far between now. I think there's another way in which automation has changed our industry, which is something that we don't talk about as much, which is that we've replaced these people who we used to call editors and ad salespeople with algorithms run by Google and Facebook that now choose what to show people and sell the ads around it. So there's been a lot of automation happening in our industry. It just hasn't been happening at the news organizations. It's been happening in Silicon Valley.

Scott Galloway: Your insight and your word, "artisanal," is really, I think, a striking insight as I think about it. And I'm going to parrot it as my own. But the notion that any activity that's rote, that's the opposite of artisanship, right? I mean, what you do, and I think most of the journalists other than Kara Swisher at the New York Times do, is it's artisanal. They actually come up with original ideas that no AI for decades is going to be able to do. And I think that's a very interesting way of looking at it, saying, okay, artisanship. So how do you prepare a new generation of people coming up and maybe the ones that don't have access to college? How do you encourage or how does our education system instill artisanship?

Kevin Roose: Well, I think it has to start from instilling a sense that this stuff is valuable, that you're not going to be unemployable if you're a musician or a philosopher or a sociologist. There was this really strong thread coming out of Silicon Valley for many years about the fact that STEM education was all that mattered. I think Marc Andreessen said, "English majors are going to end up working in shoe stores" and stuff like that. We really defunded and devalued those humanities programs and I think we're starting to see the results of that. I had a tech CEO tell me recently, "I can hire tons of engineers but I'm having a lot of trouble hiring salespeople because no one in the Bay Area has the people skills to be able to go to a company and sell them software." And that is a real missing piece in the economy today, the people with those kind of empathetic human communication skills. And I think we need to start reorienting the curriculum that we teach to kids around that.

Kara Swisher: But the jobs would be healthcare workers, they would be social workers, they would be what else?

Kevin Roose: Well, I think the sort of categories that are most automation-resistant right now are in things like healthcare. But I actually think that the job taxonomy of "this job is going to be totally safe from automation and this other job is not going to be safe" is the wrong way to look at it. I think it's about the way that you do that job. Are you doing it in a rote and repetitive way or are you doing it in a creative and human way? And so that's what the book is trying to guide people to. Even if your job is not being an artist, even if you're an accountant, there are ways to do that job that are more human and less automatable. Pushing people toward those parts of their jobs is one of the goals here.

Scott Galloway: But when do computers get the ability to do that, or are they on that? You're already starting to see AI do some kind of emotional work, like analyzing emotions. They've implemented bots that are therapy bots for people who need some assistance there. In education, you already see dynamic curricula that are being used by AI, or that is using AI to personalize learning for people. I think those kinds of jobs are something to think about. But I do think that this job-based framework is not the right one. I think we need to be thinking less about what you're supposed to be doing to make yourself future-proof and more about how you're supposed to be doing it.

Kevin Roose: But there are certain jobs that really have a big red target on them, for sure. Sure, but it's not to say that those jobs are going to go extinct. I mean, even though the corporate earnings reports journalists are not doing so well these days, people who are creative and flexible and very human are finding ways to make money off of it. So I think that's where the value is going, to the things that are sort of deeply human and away from the things that are more mechanistic and based on sort of productivity and output.

Kara Swisher: So whenever you write a book, you go in with a set of kind of predetermined theses around what the book is going to be about. There's some thoughts on, okay, I want to write about X, Y, and Z. And then you do the research, you write the book, and typically you discover a couple things that sort of change your view. What did you come out after writing this book? What changed in your view of automation and robotics?

Kevin Roose: So I started off as basically an optimist about AI and automation. And I still am, although I've tempered it somewhat. I now call myself a "sub-optimist" because I think this technology can be amazing if we do it right and thoughtfully. It could free us from our worst tasks. It could solve world hunger and climate change and cure diseases. The technology is not the problem. It's the people who are implementing the technology right now that's the problem. I think that's what's changed in my view of AI and automation. It's not a guarantee that all this is going to improve people's lives. We actually have to work hard to make that happen. People need to prepare themselves. It's not enough to attend a coding boot camp anymore. You really have to work on yourself so that you're ready and you're not as replaceable as you might be right now.

Kara Swisher: I'm going to ask you one further question. And speaking of the people responsible for making these decisions about algorithms or automation or cutting costs, they're people doing this at the top who just want to make more money and they want to cut costs. And the pandemic's been a way to hide a lot of these sins, essentially. Like, why not do this? I have three or four people who have gotten laid off recently who had jobs like that. We're saving costs now since the pandemic. And I think it's just a feint because this is what they want to do in the first place. But one of the things you do write about, and I love your comment at the end of this, you write a lot about misinformation. And you've sort of looked at the past year or two, and these hearings are coming up on Capitol Hill around the impact of social media networks on the attack on the Capitol. What is your assessment right now, given you're a sub-optimist? But I think in this case, you may not be an optimist, but I don't know.

Kevin Roose: Yeah, I think the misinformation conversation is related to the automation conversation. I think a lot of what we talk about when we talk about automation is kind of external automation, like robots coming into factories and stuff like that. But there's a kind of internal automation that's happening to a lot of people that is really worrisome. And I include myself in that. Every day we wake up and we look at our phones and we are just fed algorithmic feeds and machine-generated recommendations and our phones and our devices are telling us what to think about. Misinformation has always been present, but now it's hyper-present because of these algorithms and the platforms that use them. I think it's not only enough to get the right job to future-proof your career. It's also about detaching yourself from some of the technologies that exist to sway your opinion, to persuade you of something that maybe you don't want to be persuaded of, and to ultimately confuse you about who you are. You have to know yourself better than the algorithms know yourself or else you're going to be replaced.

Kara Swisher: How do you look at these companies now? How they influence us?

Kevin Roose: I think they exert tremendous influence. I think they don't want to admit it, but that's another thing that I think I've become much more skeptical on. I think that AI is never going to make for an effective editing function. What we've seen at Facebook, they've been promising for years, "We're going to automate content moderation. AI is going to take over, it's going to filter out all the hate speech and all the misinformation." And I think what they've realized, belatedly, is that humans are just better at that. And so you have to bring in a bunch of people and train them and put them to work in content moderation divisions and that that's sort of a mistake of over-automation and under-investment in human potential.

Kara Swisher: On that note, Kevin, your book is called *Future Proof*. It's an excellent book, I've read it. *Nine Rules for Humans in the Age of Automation*. Thank you so much. Let's roll, Kevin.

Scott Galloway: I need the tea. Don't roll with them. And figure out a way I can put one of those Amazon watches on Scott and make sure his productivity is up.

Kevin Roose: And Kara, I should say, you are a big part of the reason that this book exists at all.

Kara Swisher: Because I threatened you.

Kevin Roose: Yeah, because a couple years ago we were talking and I said, "I have this idea for this book called *Future Proof* about how people can protect themselves from AI and automation." And you said, "That's a great idea and if you don't write it, I'm going to." And I said, as Michael Jordan would say...

Kara Swisher: That about sums up Kara Swisher. I was trying to get him to do it. I was going to do it.

Kevin Roose: And as Michael Jordan would say, I took that personally.

Kara Swisher: Yes, good. She left her handprints on you.

Kevin Roose: I left my handprints. I was trying to scare you because she thought I could.

Kara Swisher: Artisanship left your handprints. You thought I could and I might. That's right, right? Good for you. I offered you. That's what I did. So thank you for inspiring me to do this book.

Kevin Roose: Yes, through fear and loathing is how I like to do it. And I'm glad it's here. It's a beautiful book. Congrats on the book.

Kara Swisher: Thank you. Do not hang with Scott. Let me just give you that piece of advice.

Scott Galloway: Don't say that.

Kara Swisher: Another piece of advice. Don't say that.

Scott Galloway: We're going to double date with Megan and Harry.

Kara Swisher: Okay. Don't insult them.

Scott Galloway: And Oprah.

Kara Swisher: Thank you so much. Thanks, Kevin. Congrats on the book.

Kevin Roose: We're going to get our dirty handprints on the rest of the show, but we really appreciate it. It's a great book. Thanks so much.

Kara Swisher: And you should all buy it. Okay, Scott, we'll be back after one quick break for wins and fails.

[BREAK]

Kara Swisher: Okay, Scott, wins and fails. Obviously, your failure to marry Mackenzie Scott was a grave error despite the fact that you are already married.

Scott Galloway: Well, I have a trivia question for you, Kara.

Kara Swisher: Okay, go ahead.

Scott Galloway: And this is my win. Do you know which organization is responsible for three quarters of all charity money given last year by philanthropists for pandemic relief?

Kara Swisher: I don't know, the U.S. government?

Scott Galloway: Who is responsible for three quarters? I'll make it easy. What individual is responsible for three quarters of all pandemic-related giving philanthropy last year?

Kara Swisher: Bill Gates.

Scott Galloway: Mackenzie Scott.

Kara Swisher: Oh.

Scott Galloway: There you go. So my win, I think Mackenzie Scott is a wonderful person. I loved, and we talked about this, rather than taking, and you'll like this, a male approach to giving where she wants her name etched in marble rather than hiring a bunch of Yale grads in social justice and RFPs and pretending to understand their viewpoint should influence education in Newark or Connecticut. She just said, "People are hurting. I have money, and I'm going to push it out." That was a bold gangster move. And she's marrying a science teacher. Good for her. You're in love with someone who's a science teacher. You're worth $30 billion. You're empathetic. You're changing the world. Mackenzie Scott, you deserve all the happiness that is coming to you.

Kara Swisher: I like that. What's your fail?

Scott Galloway: My fail is, so the stimulus package gets through. I think that's a great thing. I think the stimulus is less bad than the rest, the relief package. But it just struck me that Joe Manchin, the senator from West Virginia, was the only senator. And that is the Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body. We're supposed to—they're supposed to argue and then they're supposed to compromise with each other based on evidence and argument. And what we have now is essentially red and blue. And they all get into their caucuses and say, "All right, Nancy and Chuck or Kevin and whoever else runs the Republican caucus and say, this is how we're voting, yes or no." And it's literally a party line vote. And for once we had an individual—and I don't know Senator Manchin that well. I don't know much—I don't want to make an assessment on whether his arguments were the right one. But he is doing—he's the one senator. He is doing what they're all supposed to do, and that is negotiate and hammer out things and say, "Okay, maybe the other folks have a point. So let's get together." And it just struck me that right now, as we sit here today, we are one for 100 in terms of deliberation and what the Senate is actually supposed to be doing. That's my fail.

Kara Swisher: I like that. I like that. I think that's excellent. I didn't so much—I think a fail for me was Kyrsten Sinema doing the weird hands-down thing. I thought that was thoughtless.

Scott Galloway: Say more?

Kara Swisher: She was voting against the $15 minimum wage, which is fine. Like, she can make her choices if she wants. I do think the Democrats failed in pushing it out so much. They should have done it at 10 and 12. I know it was gradual. It just seemed like an opportunity lost in that one. But I didn't like how she voted. She came out. She put her thumbs down like John McCain did during the health care thing, and then she curtsied. And I thought, well, you know what?

Kara Swisher: Even if you lose, you're on a losing site. You don't want to be made fun of. I didn't like that very much. I didn't like that. Not at all.

Kara Swisher: Here's what I did like. I did like the vaccinations are going. I like how it's moving. It feels like there's some moving. And I think it is a failure that schools haven't reopened. And there's only so much time left in the year. So that means kids really won't go back to school until September. But I do think that the vaccinations and the CDC is releasing important information. I think the Biden administration has done a nice job here. So there is sort of a feeling of possible hopefulness in the news, which I think was going to happen in some fashion at some point. But you do feel like winter is over. I don't know why, I just feel like it is. It actually physically is here in Washington, but that's what it feels like.

Kara Swisher: So I feel hopeful. I feel hopeful. That's nice. That's good. That's what I feel like. In any case.

Kara Swisher: So, Scott, thank you so much. This has been a delightful time. I'm very happy you got raised money. I'm serious. I am happy you raised money. You sound happy. For my rabbit hole. You sound happy. Rat hole. Not a rat hole. My rat hole. That's the expression I used to use when there was so much money in Silicon Valley chasing stupid startups. I don't think these are stupid startups. I think I'm happy that there's going to be serious startups done going forward. I feel like climate change, whatever you think of Jamaat putting the money, it's climate change tech, education tech, health tech. I'm good with all those things. I'm good with all those things, and I think they're important for the planet.

Kara Swisher: Okay, Scott, that's the show. We'll be back Friday for more. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit your questions for the Pivot podcast. We love listener mail. The link is also in our show notes. Scott, read us out.

Scott Galloway: Today's show was produced by Rebecca Sinanis. Ernie Indra Todd engineered this episode. Thanks also to Hannah Rosen and Drew Burrows. Make sure you subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, or if you're an Android user, check us out on Spotify or, frankly, wherever you listen. If you like the show, please recommend it to a friend. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business.

Scott Galloway: Three quarters of all philanthropic giving last year was pandemic-related giving. Thank you so much from the country. Congratulations, Mackenzie Scott.