February 13, 2025 • 41 mins
Amid a maelstrom of executive orders and other presidential actions, Nate and Maria discuss best practices for staying focused on the important things. They also give their takes on what those important things are. And, they follow up on their Super Bowl prop bet – were there tears during the National Anthem? (They disagree – weigh in below.)
Plus, Nate updates us on his housing search, and Pushkin+ subscribers get advice about how to pick a doctor.
For more from Nate and Maria, subscribe to their newsletters:
The Leap from Maria Konnikova
Silver Bulletin from Nate Silver
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, a show about making
better decisions. I'm Maria Kannakova and I'm Nate Silver.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Today on the show, we're talking about the super Bowl,
which was a tremendously disappointing result if you don't like
seeing men crying or the Kansas City Chiefs America's team losing.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
But we'll talk about how that went and our belt.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Yes, and then we're going to talk about Trump, what's
been going on in the last few weeks, and kind
of what the important things are to focus on. Right
where should we be diverting our attention, what should we
be not looking at at all, because obviously there's a
barrage of things that are being plung at a and
(01:09):
it's very important, as we've said over and over, to focus.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
And then how to find the Holy Grail a nice
apartment in New York City.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Yes, good luck with that search tonight. And after that
we will actually have a special segment for our Pushkin
Plus subscribers, answering a timeless question from a listener, how
do you pick a good doctor? All right, Nate, let's
(01:39):
talk about the super Bowl.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
As one of the few people rooting for the Kansas
City Chiefs and betting, not necessarily for a plus CV bit,
but following my heart my partners from Kansas City. I
thought that game was a fucking nightmare. I have to say,
I don't know. And to see I'm not anti Tom Brady,
but to see Tom Brady gloating that he's going to
(02:02):
keep his goat status for now.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Patrick, you know I've been in a situation nineteen times
and Packrick, it was just fucking bunking. It was.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
I rarely am bothered by sports, right, you assume you
lose half the time, and this like this bug me me, Maria.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
I mean, I like Philly, Philly is against City. Let's
let's say that. Like I'm usually pro Philly. That region, that.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Whole Philly, Baltimore, sure, Maryland regions kind of a weird region.
You know, they have interesting accents, interesting food, right, I
feel like it's it's I take that region over New England.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Oh interesting. Well, as a New Englander, I actually happen
to agree. I'm you know, I'm a Bostonian who's who's
not a huge Boston fan. So so there you have it.
But I actually have the same beef with with Philly.
That I have with Boston, which is that their sports
fans can be really nasty. I don't like nasty sports fans.
(02:58):
I like people who like our sports fans, you know,
and have good spirit, but don't get don't get like
really mean when they win. And I don't know, Philly's
not as bad as but Boston. I think we've talked
about this on the show before. Is awful. Right when
the Red Sox finally won the World Series and reverse
the curse, they were setting cars on fire in Harvard Square,
(03:19):
Like what the actual fund?
Speaker 2 (03:20):
I mean, you're kind of deprived of like sunlight up there,
stuff much fucking sunlight in Boston in the winter.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
That's very true. That's very true. But there's not much
sunlight in New York right now either, So so yes,
I don't like it when sports fans get really nasty.
But I do like Philly, and I think that this
is all good. I also don't like gloating, so I'm
with you that the Tom Brady thing is a little
bit off putting. Luckily, I did not listen to you.
(03:47):
I did not put any money on the Chiefs, So
I'm good, even though you advised me too.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
You know, at least.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
It wasn't a bat where you ever had hope, you know,
the hope was immediate, I guess of that one interception
in the first layer.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Yes, and by the way, dear listeners, I did watch
the whole thing because first of all, I needed to
watch from the beginning, because I needed to know that
I want and our prop bet about crying.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Which I'm not even sure have we review the video
on this, I'm not even.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
Sure about this is this is so funny.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
So all of the sports books have called it in
my favor. And Nate and I had a text exchange
at the time.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
We had different terms. We had different terms.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
He said a tear.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
I saw tears, not crying, but I.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Saw tears and eyes and there was even someone wiping
away a tear, to which Nate wrote, So this is
our text exchange. I actually sorry, Nate, this is this
is about to become a public record. So someone one
of our you know, loyal listeners on Twitter the moment
this happened, tweeted at us, at both of us, saying
they just showed a player wiping away a tear during
(04:51):
the national anthem exclamation point, and I was like, hell, yeah,
I know they did, because I'm watching.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
If a tear falls in the forest and no one
is there to see it, it is the man crying
and so and so.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
I sent this to Night and Nate said, saw tears
being wiped but maybe not actual tears. And I said, dude, no,
And I still stand by mind, dude, no, resolute.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
We're gonna have to go to a video. I mean,
this is a small bit.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
I'm not gonna you know, I mean, I'm the chiefs
thing already as we devastated, right, but like you know,
I don't know about that.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
You have to you have to embrace it.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
I went. We negotiated the term was carefully.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
We did, but there was a tier and it was
being wiped away.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Okay, The terms were, is there a player or coach
who has a tear in their eye during the national anthem?
I think I think you'd have to actually see the tier,
not just the implication of the tier.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
But that's that's those were the terms that we carefully negotiated.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
There was you could see the tier, and whenever you
saw the player's eyes you could actually see them welling up,
which is one of the things I said, you know,
the welling up with tiers.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Okay, let me say this.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Let's say we bet that a McDonald's hamburger would be
shown on the broadcast, and what you see is the
residue of a big knac.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
You see the rapper and some of the I don't know.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
But no, we saw the big We saw the final
bite of the big mac being consumed, and that would
count because we saw the final bite and then someone
wiping away their mouth. So I think that I won
this bet. Nate clearly has some issues with it, but
I will side with all of the sports books, with
(06:26):
our loyal fans who all say they also saw tears. Nate,
I think I got this one, and I think what
did you? I think you lost ten bucks? Right, We're okay.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
I'll buy you a beer for your tears, all.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Right, perfect. I don't drink beer, but you can buy
me half a glass of wine because I don't think
ten dollars is gonna do the fun. We'll do a
half poor. You owe me a half poor half wine.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
Ironically, the less you pay for wine, the bigger the
better of the poor. It's a little secret.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Yeah. Oh. I also wanted to correct the record from
last week when we were talking about the coin flip.
So I actually tracked down the study that looked at this,
and it's by Percy Diaconus, who does really fun work
and statistics, and it turns out that the coin is
(07:13):
slightly more likely to land on the side from which
it started. So that's when it's a human person tossing it.
So if it starts with heads up, it's more likely
to land heads like fifty points, it's not it's less
than a half a percent. Like it's tiny, tiny, tiny,
and you need thousands and thousands of tosses. But when
it's a human being and not like a computer, not
(07:33):
a simulation, it turns out that the coin is more
likely to land on the side which was facing up
at the start of the toss. So I just want
to throw that out there for people who are doing
these bets.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
I think I did say tails right. Yeah, I got
that right, and the chiefs got that right, and that
was the only yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
So that was also the only.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Thing that went right over the course the entire yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
So the weight also matters, so we're we're both. I
just wanted to make sure to put that study out
there because I think it's a lot of fun and
I think it's kind of cool that there's human error, right,
that's introduced in the way that we the way that
we toss coins.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
I mean, you know, they could do rock papers so right,
which adds like nielman is strategy and game theory.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Yeah, that would be fun. But they should They should
get the uh A Japanese team to do this because
I think they're the best at rochambo. I think they
always win the championships. So they need they need like
a backup team their quarterback to do the rock paper sesssor.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
WSO RPS World twiir is of rochambo or rock paper anyway.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Yeah, there you go. All right, So that's the Super Bowl, Nate.
I'm sorry that your team lost. I'm happy that I
won our prop bet. And you know, I think we
both agree that people gloating is never a good luck no.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
So you know, for example, for example, you wouldn't have
mentioned the prep bet five times there.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
I think.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Just once in our summation of the segment, which we
always do. We always sum up what we've talked about.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
You're awesome bragging about a bet with you minus four hundred.
I've been the sumach up tomorrow minus a million. All right,
all right, all right, let's we have other things to discuss.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
That is true, we have important things to discuss. So
let's talk about what has been going on in the
last few weeks of the Trump presidency. So he's been,
you know, splashing around quite a bit, trying different things,
all of these executive orders, seeing what's going to stick.
And as we've said before on the show, a lot
of this is distraction, right, that is his tactic. How
(09:37):
do you distract people from figuring out what's actually important
and keep them just constantly putting out small fires so
that when the big one comes along, you kind of
just let it go. So let's talk about what is
actually important to focus on and what we can ignore
for now. So maybe as a start, Nate, let's just
talk about some general heuristics, some good rules for choosing
(10:00):
what to pay attention to. So when you try to
figure out, okay, what should I be focusing on? What
comes to mind? How do you figure out orties, whether
it's Trump or anything else, just in general, what am
I going to pay attention to?
Speaker 3 (10:14):
Well?
Speaker 2 (10:15):
My process is weird because I'm thinking about, like what
things can I write about? So and also I have
this kind of like distaining for like the daily politics crap.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Like I never watch cable.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
News, right, I read the newspapers, I guess, or read
the digital version of the newspapers.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
But like, so you know, to.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Me to just say, like the thing that gets partisans
wiled up on like X, blue sky whatever else, like
don't pay attention to that generally speaking, right, because they
are trying to, like you know, it's like following your
the Yankees or your favorite baseball team, where it's like, yeah,
there's going to be a headline every day, and like
it probably isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Yeah, I think I think that that's actually an important thing.
I to try to kind of stay away from daily
news because it's really really easy to get completely kind
of caught up in this attention hijacking, right, and like
the culture of momentary outrage. Oh he said this, this happened.
(11:11):
And if you're too online, I think that nothing hijacks
your attention more than that, right, Like the overly like
being too involved in all of this discourse and every
single thing that comes up. I think that that distracts
you from bigger picture things. So something I always ask myself,
is okay, you know, how important is this in the
long term? What are the implications? Is this something that
(11:33):
we're going to care about in a week? Right? Is
this something that we're going to care about in a month.
If the answer is yes, okay, maybe pay attention to it.
If the answer is no, then I can safely avoid
this particular conversation and not be a part of it.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Like if you go to like MSNBC dot com right now,
right read the headlines. One's about Kanye West, one's about
like Steve Bannon, and then Eric Adams. Right, one's about
Rob Lagoyevitch, the former government Illinois who has got partnered
or is going to get pardoned. You know, Trump's frustration
with deportation numbers will likely lead to more chaos, right
is the headline of one article. So it's all stuff
(12:08):
that like is designed to get an emotional reaction out
of partisans.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Yes, I can, I can. I make a confession, and
I hope that they well they will take it personally,
but I hope this does not affect my future career.
I don't think I've ever gone to MSNBC dot com
to the front page like that is just not a
website that I have ever visited unless someone has given
me a link to a specific article that I should
(12:34):
be reading for some specific reason. Right, there are places
that are meant to hijack your attention, and that to me,
just like Fox News like on the other side, to me,
those are places that are meant to kind of filment,
outrage and hijack your attention, and I just try to
stay out of that, right, Like, that is not how
I want to consume my news. And we'll be back
(12:55):
right after this. So, Nate, what are some of the
things that Trump has done that are actually important, meaningful,
consequential that we should actually be paying attention to.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
The fact that the Trump administration seems a little bit
indifferent toward separation of powers. You know, I had this
article called one hundred and thirteen predictions about Trump and
like le of various things go right or run, And
you know, I had what's a chance that he'll disobey
a Supreme Court order?
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Which I had ten percent.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Which sounds low because usually it's conservaed Supreme Court, right,
so it's like you would if he could. But like,
but you know, we are getting more and more issues
where they're like Okay, go ahead, and we're gonna do
a bunch of shit that we know is illegal, and
go ahead and stop us. We have first mover advantage,
and then we will interpret very liberally every ambiguity and
(14:00):
things like that. And you know, and so that whole
thrust of things. I mean, you know, people start all
of a sudden saying no, this is a coup and
that auto golpe is a self coup where you get
in power and then destroy And like, I think the
problem is that like the audience for this message are
people who are like already convinced and because this is
(14:21):
this like abstract thing, and you know, the thing is
like he's targeting us aid, you know, foreign assistance, even
though if you kind of look from an ev standpoint,
probably has a lot of utilitarian benefit.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
Four and eight is not a very popular program, right.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
A lot of the other executive worriers are doing are
things and are popular enough, or they have a mandate
to do based on the election, on the immigration stuff,
for example, And so I don't know, I uh, what
do you think, Maria?
Speaker 1 (14:53):
No, I mean, I totally agree with you that like
number one issue, which underlies a lot of what's going
on is a lack of regard for separation of power.
And I don't think that this is just Trump. I
think that this is also kind of Congress lacking a
backbone and not being like, hey, you're taking away powers
that should be ours, right, instead of doing that and
being like, hey, guys, like this is ours. We're the
(15:15):
ones who who control the purse strings, right, We're the
ones who do these allocations the budget committee matters. Instead
they're like being Okay, you know you gave us, you
gave another executive order. Okay, that's cool, Like it's what
we want, so it's fine. But I think that it's
very short term thinking, and I think that's incredibly dangerous. Right,
So that to me is very worrisome because we want
(15:37):
a government that does check each other, that you know,
that is responsive, and we do want a judicial system
that is listened to. Like it's actually going to be
very scary if Trump just flat out defies a judicial order, right, Like,
what's going to happen? Then is the rest of government
going to grow a spine or not? So I agree
with you that that is very important, and I also
(15:58):
but there are other issues that I think are part
of this that I think are also worth paying attention.
I actually think that cutting the funding to USAID is
is a major issue and not good because you can
obviously frame it and oh, like we only care about America, right,
America first. But if you think about what AID is
(16:20):
actually being cut, right, people are not getting life saving medications,
like you actually have a body count, right, you will
have people who will die without access to these medications,
without access to some of these programs, And so I
think that's a huge deal. And people are just looking
the other way and saying, well, I don't care, it's
not me, it could be you, right like that that's
(16:41):
actually incredibly important.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Look, it could be an opportunity for private charitable organizations,
which are sometimes more efficient than the government, to step up.
But yeah, like you almost can kind of like the
equilibrium research that you know, it probably is pretty good
from utilitarian standpoint, because it's unpopular, right for America to
do something that doesn't help us directly, and of course,
you know, having more stability in the world can help
(17:03):
us directly, can help us, but like it kind of
has to be good in order for us to tolerate it.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
You know, exactly.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
The third thing that I would say, though, since I
do come from academia and I am very well aware
of the importance of research, I'm actually very worried about
the NIH funding as well, which is part of you
know what Trump has been trying to do over and
over and over, Like, he has tried to do this repeatedly,
and I think that it's really going to if it
(17:34):
holds right, because people are actually trying to protest this,
then capping the indirect cost at fifteen percent is going
to be a huge blow to research in the United States,
to innovation in the United States, to the number of
people who can and will stay here. And I think
it's actually something that will make us a whole lot
less competitive on the global arena than we currently are. Like,
(17:58):
it's a big fuck you to research. By the way,
this is from someone who has written about and talked
about the fact that there's tons of administrative bloat in academia, right,
this ain't the way to get rid of it, and
this is aiming at something very different despite what the
rhetoric might say.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Yeah, I mean, this is also one of the you know,
I've had enough fights with enough like woke academics over
the years and criticisms over the politicization and research and
just not politicized but just kind of crappy research that's
you know, p hacking and things like that. You know, look,
the good news is all over, and I might make
all this more popular again, but like we're only three
(18:34):
weeks in, and I understand that people feel overwhelmed.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Yeah, and as you say, like it is showing a
disdain for a very real public good, right for things
that help both the United States and people individually, for
really crucial research. And you know, I was I was
talking to my sister who is an mdphd who runs
a lab who's fund to get is getting cut who
you know, it doesn't know if the NAH grant that
(18:58):
she was supposed to get is actually going to come through.
And she's doing like life saving work with infants and
infant health and all of these different things, and we
were just talking about it, and I was trying to
calm her down because obviously, like she's very upset. And
I was like, look like, you know, if this makes
him unpopular enough, if he tries to do too much,
then in two years, you know, Democrats should be able
(19:19):
to win the midterm elections and blah blah blah. She's like, yeah,
but two years could actually be enough to kill a
lot of crucial research programs and to get people to
leave the United States right to get some research, to
go to Europe, to go to Asia, to go to
places that will actually be able to carry out the
types of work that they need to be carrying out.
(19:40):
And so I think that in general we've seen both
for Milan and from Trump, this like anti anti public
good but also anti science stance that is really playing
out here and it affects not just science.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Right.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
One of the reasons that I that the NIH was
so important was because the federal funding actually helped a
lot of other research go forward that wouldn't have otherwise
been able to go forward because private corporations tend to
give a lot less money and tend to have a
(20:15):
lot lower limits on that overhead. And that's in the
universities were able to kind of make up the shortfall
because they had NAH funding. And this helped funding in
the arts right, funding in areas in the humanities that
won't otherwise get funding because there ain't much money for them.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
I mean, look, maybe forcing people to be more efficient
isn't such a bad thing.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
I mean, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
It's like, this is an efficiency. It's already incredibly efficient,
is what I was telling you. Even though even though,
like I said, no academia has bloated, like we started
this conversation, I am very anti academic bloat. But this
isn't the way. This is like taking a hammer and
being like, let me just crush academia. And I think
you agree with that, as opposed to saying like, okay,
(21:01):
let's figure out where inefficiencies are. It's the opposite of
what we talked about last week with the FAA and
like how you were saying, well, just throwing more money
at it, and I was like, no, don't throw more money
at it. Try to figure out how the money's allocated.
How do we do this more efficiently. Here, it's the
exact opposite. It's just saying, well, let's just take money away.
There are entire universities that actually cannot have a research
(21:22):
program without this. You know, sure, like a Harvard, a
Yale will will probably be fine, even though the research
is going to get worse, because they can figure out
how to deal with the shortfall. But schools that aren't
like that are not going to be able to.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
When the church and students was it eighty thousand? You know,
I mean use that money.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Hey, they do, That's the thing they use. They do.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
They have way more money than indowments than they needs.
Start actually using those endowmonds. You don't need. You don't
need to be a little hedgephone.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
So I'm saying Harvard and Yale will be fine, but
what about everywhere else? Those aren't the only two schools
where research happens.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
All I'm saying is like, is like you have to
because there's so much you're trying to cut costs. There's
so much like special leading, right, you can always make
an exception for this program or that program. And so
I think strategically like the notion of like ripping the
band aid off, and you know, if you're trying to.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Like this isn't This isn't ripping the band aid off.
This is cutting off the arm. And I think we
will see that if this actually holds, I am willing
to bet that research in the US, advancements in the US,
the US as an innovator in any field of science
is going to just go away.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Well, we're innovators because of the private sector. Mostly No,
we're in.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
But you forget how much of the private sector is
done by academics who went into academia who have that knowledge.
People are going to stop. But if you know you
can't get funding and you can't do your research, why
in the world would you go into a PhD program?
Why would you run a lab? Right? People go from
academia to industry. Where does industry get its superstars from academia?
(22:59):
Where is that pipeline going to go? If we don't
have fund they are going to go abroad. They are
going to places where they can do their work and
they can do their research. So I think that you
need to think more strategically, more long term about this.
And I think you actually agree with me because you
agreed with me at the beginning and right now you're
just disagreeing with for the hell of it, which is
never a good reason to disagree with.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
Yeah, Like I think there's like I mean, a big
guy who people believe we're in mean reversion, right, And
like I don't think you can like take these three weeks,
which have been dramatic and have been in some ways
very effective for Trump, far more well planned from an
effectiveness standpoint than his first turn.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
I know you feel like extractl like that forward, right.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
Well I hope not. I hope not. But so, like
I said, like, it would be great if this were temporary,
you know, if we can't extrapolate it forward. But I'm
just saying, our question is what should people focus on
what's actually important and not distraction. I think that this
is important and not distraction. Right. People actually need to
focus on this so that it will reverse, right, so
that it will revert so that people realize that this
(24:00):
is an important issue, unlike a lot of other things.
So what we're talking about right now is how to
set priorities, how to focus on the things that actually matter.
And I think we both agree that this is something
that actually matters. Once again, the easier thing to do,
the lazier thing to do, is just look at the
talking points and be like, yeah, I agree with that, yeah,
cut bloat, yeah, like yeah, this is all good.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Right.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
That's that's just a very lazy, intellectually way to look
at it, To look at the talking points that are
being thrust at us and just be like okay, yeah
that makes sense, of course, right, that's the that's the
point of talking points. So I think that as we prioritize,
as we think about what should we pay attention to
of the last three weeks, separation of powers, USAID, NIH
(24:44):
and other science funding. I think these are three things
that actually matter, and there are a bunch of things
that don't matter or that won't matter, or that will
be reversed. Like I don't actually think that the birthright
citizenship is that important because that's going to get blocked, right,
like that is. And if it doesn't get blocked, like
holy shit, then we have much bigger problems, right because
that's unconstitutional.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Look, I mean there's a you know, so I would
say that, you know, Trump has some degree of mandate
on immigration stuff and DEI stuff, and so that stuff's
not that's a president. It doesn't even be generating that
much outrage. Even some of the you know, tran stuff
seems to have a relatively muted reaction. I mean, I
(25:27):
don't know who's wrecking to anything really, right. It's heart
because there are these issues that are like cultural touchstones
that like you can read some mandate and have the
electorate voted, then you have these things that are like
these abstract, very bad things that people like you and
I might say, are the highest ev concerns marrier, right,
And then there's like a third bucket of like distractions
(25:49):
like the Elon Musk like.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Nazi or Italian where we're calling it.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Solute and just like the stupid shit Trump says from
day to day and the owning the lib stuff and
like you know, and it's like the problem is like
the most you know, the terroriffs are like.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Important economically, but.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
Like the terrorists are like okay, if you want to
be ma Familian about it, then like let Trump do.
Let these terrorists and like fucking cause inflation, and fine,
you're gonna lose popularity, right, So it's like not like,
you know, I don't know if you want people like
marching in the streets against tariffs exactly.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
It's hard to know.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
I think they're playing I think they're playing a pretty
effective tactical game of like not giving Democrats things that
are like.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Oh absolutely, they're crushing it big.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
I mean, there are things that they're on the wrong
side of public opinion, but there are things that are
abstract and hard to actualize, right, and then things that
are right that are reached democrats. But it's just kind
of I don't know, it's been, it's been. You know,
what I would say for Demcrats is like it will
get worse for Trunk, It may get worse for people
who don't like the things Trump's doing. But like, you know,
he starts out less popular than any president except for
(27:01):
his first turn. Now it's a little bit of an
exception because like he was president before. It's kind of
being a continuation. So he is more popul I mean,
he is net popular now, right, but like that probably
won't be true in six months, nine months and having
little patience, you know, I mean, you know, I don't
think publishing like blame Trump for like planes literally falling
out of the sky two weeks into his term, but
(27:23):
they might two years into his turn. And like that's
a reasonable heuristic. It's actually pretty smart that, like, yeah,
the day you take over, it's probably not your.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
Fault, but you know, after that it might be.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
And so I don't know, he is spending his political
I mean, went less of Democrats is like spending have
a fucking game plan for the first one hundred days.
But although even then, right, a lot of things Biden
did in the first hundred days was like through both
policy and rhetoric, kind of open up the border a
lot more, and you know, pass a lot of executive
(27:57):
orders that included environmental regulations and racial equity regulations and
things like that later made the stimulus package is harder
to implement and slower. So like a lot of things
that were kind of hidden from the public eye wound
up costing Biden and Harris down the road. And so
maybe Democrats can take like a little bit of a
lesson from that, right that Trump is pushing a lot
(28:19):
of buttons, not knowing we're all about leads and the
consequences might not be clear until a year or two year,
four years from now.
Speaker 3 (28:25):
But like he's running a lot of liability.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Okay, So it seems like we're both agreed that, you know,
the single most important thing is that the separation of
powers is eroding, is not being honored, and that this
is the thing that could actually wind up if it
goes too far, being very difficult, I'm not going to
say impossible, but very difficult to kind of roll back unravel.
(28:49):
This is the thing that if you are going to
pay attention to one thing, it's this right that we
need the separation of powers to be honored, USAI, d
NAH funding. All these things also important, but separation of powers.
If we're if we're gonna say one thing to focus on,
it's going to be that.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
I agree, And then you know, in terms of like
what not to focus on. I mean, Trump has always
been very good at having distractions. I think some battles
were lost in public opinion with restection, like immigration and
things like that, and the goal there is probably to
try to rebuild public opinion from the ground.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Uh. But like, if there's any issue on which Trump
like had amendate, it's immigration and inflation, which is actually
kind of fucking up by implementing teriffs.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
That is absolutely true. Also, egg prices are not doing
anyone any favors. Let's take a break and talk about housing.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
Nate.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Last time we spoke, you were looking for an apartment
in New York City. First of all, wow, like I
never thought you would leave your apartment, So, so talk us
through that decision, how it's going.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Both of My landlord isn't listening to this. My partner
and I have always had these kind of unusual, funky spaces,
like about the Midwest. You're like kind of like having
our space, right, But like it's often in buildings that
like where the space is oddly laid out or where
the amenities aren't aren't great.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
I know, we just had like I mean, the elevator
in our building.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Is broken half the time, and I don't want to
say where I live, but I'm not sure it's totally
up to code.
Speaker 3 (30:42):
Right, we have the water out for.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Three days in the middle of February where the pipe
is froze and things like that, and like it just
someone of my big gto theories is like you are
paying for everything involved in your apartment bundle, whether you
like use it or not. Right, So like if you
were paying a big premium to have like a large
space and you don't need all that space, then then
(31:09):
you probably wanted to downsize. Either you're saving money or
you know, in our case, I don't think the goals
save money, but just to have like to stop creating
all these amenities for for a space because.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
Ourmenities are not very good.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
And also just like there's shit like the fact that
like because the building is pre war and old, like
our heating bill is really freaking expensive because it's like
very inefficient to like heat and cool the building and
things and things like that. Right, if you have days
where the water isn't working for to stay in hotel,
I mean, you can deduct that from your rent, right,
But like that's that's a big so. And also like
(31:42):
we feel like having a new neighborhood is exciting. There's
like some degree of diminishing returns. We've been in like
the same place for gosh twelve years now, and like
New York's a big city, right, neither of us work
at a permanent location, and so therefore, like you know,
(32:02):
that should make you relatively indifferent toward where you live
within reason. I mean literally, like I kind of like
I just like made like a little math of like
you know, fifteen points that we visit often, right, from
like friends places in Brooklyn, to like our favorite restaurants
like the Dentists, to like, you know, sports arenas. The
(32:22):
airport's really important. I travel a lot, and so like, sure,
are you more convenient to at least one or two
of the three major metro area airports in New York.
That kind of thing is important, and we kind of
discover that like actually, like basically anywhere within the lower
half of Manhattan is kind of equally convenient to the
places we need to go, and so therefore go ahead
and like tack the neighborhood that you might find interesting.
(32:46):
We've been gravitating a little bit toward the east side.
I don't want to jinx anything by saying properties that
we may or may not be in the midst of
applying to now.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
And this is just for a rental, by the way,
we're not buying.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
But yeah, it's trying to figure out what things do
we actually value and then and then what things do
other people value that we don't value as much? Right,
Like we looked like one place in cell See it's
like this ground floor apartment kind of this brown stone
that has like very attractive dining living room area with
(33:20):
like an outdoor courtyard, right, and then you go down
to the base where the bedroom's are office hour and
it's kind of dreary, right, But you can imagine like
for a certain type of person that like likes to
have a lot of like house parties, right, And like
we've arrived in a certain kind of perfect Chelsea flat
for this like exact purpose, but it's not as nice
(33:41):
in terms of like the living areas and things like that.
Speaker 3 (33:44):
Which is kind of where we spend most of our time.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
So it's like, if that's someone else's dream, you know,
you don't want to pay for someone else's dream because
it's factored into like the market.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Pridace.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Now that makes sense, I think. I think it's a
really important point to say, like what are my most
important things? What do I want to pay for? What
do I not care about paying for? Otherwise you might
end up in uh, you know, nightmare situations or paying
for an apartment that you don't really that you're not
happy in.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
You know.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Another example is, you know, we thought briefly about like
looking at a place in Miami. This is kind of
during the COVID era where Miami kind of came back
online before and now I'm mostly positive with somewhat able
feelings toward Miami, but we were into you know, Miami
things like a lot of middle aged gains, I guess,
you know.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
And at first we.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
Had a friend who lives in Coconut Grow, which is
a very nice community, right, but like it's very desirable
because like it has by far the better school options
in terms of think both public and private schools and
other parts of Miami.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
So if you don't have kids in school, then like
it's huge. You really really really would have.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
To love Coconut Grove in order to like to pay
this premium for a service that you don't need, Right.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Yeah, No, I think that that's really important and something
that people, by the way, underestimate how much of a
toll it takes emotionally psychologically. There's a lot of research
on this. To commute long distances, right, it's actually very
not good for So that is something that I would
absolutely say, like, especially somewhere like New York, do you
(35:14):
take that into account? Schools are huge. So the apartment,
we looked at apartments I won't say the exact neighborhood
where I live, but we looked at apartments that are
literally a block apart, but they're in two different school zones.
And the price difference was insane, right, Like it was
an order of magnitude, and we don't have kids, Like
(35:35):
it doesn't really matter. I was like screw this, right,
like I do that, but it's one block apart, literally,
same size, same everything. And so I think that things
like that are actually quite important and can be game
changers if you're looking at an apartment in a smart
way I have had. I don't know if you've had
any nightmare apartments, but I've had one nightmare apartment where
(35:59):
should have known, right, if something is priced in a
way that makes no sense, there's probably something that you
don't realize. So I was able to rent two floor
garden duplex parlor garden duplex in the West Village on
West eleventh Street within my budget. Like I was like,
holy shit, right, Like, you can never you can never
(36:21):
afford something like this. It turns out that the building
was basically condemned. That we there were mice in the
walls and just like running everywhere. There was no insulation.
So in the winter, like the wind just like literally
went through the apartment. There was mold everywhere. So we
(36:43):
did an air quality check and like realize that, holy shit,
like the stuff we're breathing in is really not good.
And then the building ended up being gutted after you know,
we and our neighbors left. This was before I wrote
the Confidence Game. But if something is too good to
be true, it probably is, so.
Speaker 3 (37:01):
Do your due diligence.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
Yeah, and in the reverse, but I mean, sometimes people
print something on the market and just overreesumate the demand
for it, so you can have things that are priced
the rationally high, but like there's not really bargains relative
to the overall demand function of the city.
Speaker 1 (37:16):
Absolutely, and I think that it's also the case where
you're probably not going to be able to time the
market right. You will either get lucky or unlucky, because,
especially in New York, places don't sit around. Sometimes they
do right. It could be in a really horrible market,
but oftentimes the best case is to just go for it.
(37:37):
My two best rental apartments that were both tiny, but
like they were just ridiculous deals that enabled me to
live in parts of New York that I never would
have been able to afford as a twenty one year
old moving to the city. I saw them before they
hit the market. Literally, I was the first person to
see both of them. One the guy reached out to
me because I had posted on Craigslist. This was back
(37:58):
in the day when Craigslist was a big thing. I
was a senior in college. Made a posting saying, hey, like,
I'm does anyone know of a you know, studio apartment
in the West Village. This is my budget, and this
guy just reached out. He's like it's not on the
market yet. But and I ended up getting a bus,
like the Chinatown bus from Boston to New York to
(38:21):
see this apartment and just gave him money right away
and ended up signing a lease that was, you know,
started two weeks before I needed it to start. But
like I never the apartment was one thousand dollars a
month in the West Village fifty in the West Village,
in the West Village. Yes, it was on Perry Street.
(38:44):
The guy who actually it was, yeah, Perry, and like
it was premium. It was between Bleeker and Hudson, Like
just absolutely premium location. It was the parlor floor, so
huge windows. It was tiny, It was less than one
hundred square feet. It was ninety square feet payoff. Yes,
it was ninety square feet, so that was the trade off.
I lived in a glorified walk in closet, but man,
(39:06):
I was happy to wake up in that walk in
closet every single day. Yeah, my bed was lofted right
under the ceiling. And I had like this rickety ladder
that I had to climb up to make it up, like.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
A capsule hotel as I called them.
Speaker 1 (39:19):
In Asia, exactly exactly. But I had a full bathroom.
It had a little kitchen like it wasn't. It was
all in the one room right like it's it was
a mini fridge, you know, it wasn't. But it had
a stove that had like, it had everything I needed.
And I was you know, I was twenty one years
old and I was in the West Village and I
was so thrilled to be able to have that apartment.
Speaker 3 (39:39):
You're baking in the bread catches on fire.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
I mean, but look if if you don't need space
and don't pay for space and.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
Like, And at that point, I was still working in
an office. I wasn't working from home.
Speaker 2 (39:48):
Right.
Speaker 1 (39:48):
This is when I was working in advertising as a copywriter,
and I was very not happy at my job. But hey,
I had a great launch pad. Good luck night. I
hope that you are able to get one of the
apartments that you want to and I look forward. I
would look forward to a housewarming in a wonderful neighborhood
that you are excited about and that you get to
(40:09):
to explore. Absolutely, Maria, let us know what you think
of the show. Reach out to us at Risky Business
at pushkin dot fm. And by the way, if you're
a Pushkin Plus subscriber, we have some bonus content for you.
We'll be answering a listener question each week that's coming
(40:29):
up right after the credits.
Speaker 2 (40:31):
And if you're not subscribing yet, consider signing up for
just six ninety nine a month.
Speaker 3 (40:36):
What a nice price.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
You get access to all that premium content and ad
for listening across Pushkin's entire network of shows.
Speaker 1 (40:43):
Risky Business is hosted by me Maria Kanakova.
Speaker 2 (40:45):
And by me Nate Silver. The show is a co
production of Pushkin Industries and iHeartMedia. This episode was produced
by Isabel Carter. Our associate producer is Gabriel Hunter Chang.
Sally Helm is our editor, and our executive producer is
Jacob Goldstein. Mixing by Sarah Bruger.
Speaker 1 (41:02):
If you like the show, please rate and review us
so other people can find us too. Thanks so much
for tuning in.
Speaker 2 (41:10):
Spat, Fumble and FA
Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, a show about making
better decisions. I'm Maria Kannakova and I'm Nate Silver.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Today on the show, we're talking about the super Bowl,
which was a tremendously disappointing result if you don't like
seeing men crying or the Kansas City Chiefs America's team losing.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
But we'll talk about how that went and our belt.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Yes, and then we're going to talk about Trump, what's
been going on in the last few weeks, and kind
of what the important things are to focus on. Right
where should we be diverting our attention, what should we
be not looking at at all, because obviously there's a
barrage of things that are being plung at a and
(01:09):
it's very important, as we've said over and over, to focus.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
And then how to find the Holy Grail a nice
apartment in New York City.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Yes, good luck with that search tonight. And after that
we will actually have a special segment for our Pushkin
Plus subscribers, answering a timeless question from a listener, how
do you pick a good doctor? All right, Nate, let's
(01:39):
talk about the super Bowl.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
As one of the few people rooting for the Kansas
City Chiefs and betting, not necessarily for a plus CV bit,
but following my heart my partners from Kansas City. I
thought that game was a fucking nightmare. I have to say,
I don't know. And to see I'm not anti Tom Brady,
but to see Tom Brady gloating that he's going to
(02:02):
keep his goat status for now.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Patrick, you know I've been in a situation nineteen times
and Packrick, it was just fucking bunking. It was.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
I rarely am bothered by sports, right, you assume you
lose half the time, and this like this bug me me, Maria.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
I mean, I like Philly, Philly is against City. Let's
let's say that. Like I'm usually pro Philly. That region, that.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Whole Philly, Baltimore, sure, Maryland regions kind of a weird region.
You know, they have interesting accents, interesting food, right, I
feel like it's it's I take that region over New England.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Oh interesting. Well, as a New Englander, I actually happen
to agree. I'm you know, I'm a Bostonian who's who's
not a huge Boston fan. So so there you have it.
But I actually have the same beef with with Philly.
That I have with Boston, which is that their sports
fans can be really nasty. I don't like nasty sports fans.
(02:58):
I like people who like our sports fans, you know,
and have good spirit, but don't get don't get like
really mean when they win. And I don't know, Philly's
not as bad as but Boston. I think we've talked
about this on the show before. Is awful. Right when
the Red Sox finally won the World Series and reverse
the curse, they were setting cars on fire in Harvard Square,
(03:19):
Like what the actual fund?
Speaker 2 (03:20):
I mean, you're kind of deprived of like sunlight up there,
stuff much fucking sunlight in Boston in the winter.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
That's very true. That's very true. But there's not much
sunlight in New York right now either, So so yes,
I don't like it when sports fans get really nasty.
But I do like Philly, and I think that this
is all good. I also don't like gloating, so I'm
with you that the Tom Brady thing is a little
bit off putting. Luckily, I did not listen to you.
(03:47):
I did not put any money on the Chiefs, So
I'm good, even though you advised me too.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
You know, at least.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
It wasn't a bat where you ever had hope, you know,
the hope was immediate, I guess of that one interception
in the first layer.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Yes, and by the way, dear listeners, I did watch
the whole thing because first of all, I needed to
watch from the beginning, because I needed to know that
I want and our prop bet about crying.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Which I'm not even sure have we review the video
on this, I'm not even.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
Sure about this is this is so funny.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
So all of the sports books have called it in
my favor. And Nate and I had a text exchange
at the time.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
We had different terms. We had different terms.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
He said a tear.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
I saw tears, not crying, but I.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Saw tears and eyes and there was even someone wiping
away a tear, to which Nate wrote, So this is
our text exchange. I actually sorry, Nate, this is this
is about to become a public record. So someone one
of our you know, loyal listeners on Twitter the moment
this happened, tweeted at us, at both of us, saying
they just showed a player wiping away a tear during
(04:51):
the national anthem exclamation point, and I was like, hell, yeah,
I know they did, because I'm watching.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
If a tear falls in the forest and no one
is there to see it, it is the man crying
and so and so.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
I sent this to Night and Nate said, saw tears
being wiped but maybe not actual tears. And I said, dude, no,
And I still stand by mind, dude, no, resolute.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
We're gonna have to go to a video. I mean,
this is a small bit.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
I'm not gonna you know, I mean, I'm the chiefs
thing already as we devastated, right, but like you know,
I don't know about that.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
You have to you have to embrace it.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
I went. We negotiated the term was carefully.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
We did, but there was a tier and it was
being wiped away.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Okay, The terms were, is there a player or coach
who has a tear in their eye during the national anthem?
I think I think you'd have to actually see the tier,
not just the implication of the tier.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
But that's that's those were the terms that we carefully negotiated.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
There was you could see the tier, and whenever you
saw the player's eyes you could actually see them welling up,
which is one of the things I said, you know,
the welling up with tiers.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Okay, let me say this.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Let's say we bet that a McDonald's hamburger would be
shown on the broadcast, and what you see is the
residue of a big knac.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
You see the rapper and some of the I don't know.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
But no, we saw the big We saw the final
bite of the big mac being consumed, and that would
count because we saw the final bite and then someone
wiping away their mouth. So I think that I won
this bet. Nate clearly has some issues with it, but
I will side with all of the sports books, with
(06:26):
our loyal fans who all say they also saw tears. Nate,
I think I got this one, and I think what
did you? I think you lost ten bucks? Right, We're okay.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
I'll buy you a beer for your tears, all.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Right, perfect. I don't drink beer, but you can buy
me half a glass of wine because I don't think
ten dollars is gonna do the fun. We'll do a
half poor. You owe me a half poor half wine.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
Ironically, the less you pay for wine, the bigger the
better of the poor. It's a little secret.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Yeah. Oh. I also wanted to correct the record from
last week when we were talking about the coin flip.
So I actually tracked down the study that looked at this,
and it's by Percy Diaconus, who does really fun work
and statistics, and it turns out that the coin is
(07:13):
slightly more likely to land on the side from which
it started. So that's when it's a human person tossing it.
So if it starts with heads up, it's more likely
to land heads like fifty points, it's not it's less
than a half a percent. Like it's tiny, tiny, tiny,
and you need thousands and thousands of tosses. But when
it's a human being and not like a computer, not
(07:33):
a simulation, it turns out that the coin is more
likely to land on the side which was facing up
at the start of the toss. So I just want
to throw that out there for people who are doing
these bets.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
I think I did say tails right. Yeah, I got
that right, and the chiefs got that right, and that
was the only yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
So that was also the only.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Thing that went right over the course the entire yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
So the weight also matters, so we're we're both. I
just wanted to make sure to put that study out
there because I think it's a lot of fun and
I think it's kind of cool that there's human error, right,
that's introduced in the way that we the way that
we toss coins.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
I mean, you know, they could do rock papers so right,
which adds like nielman is strategy and game theory.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Yeah, that would be fun. But they should They should
get the uh A Japanese team to do this because
I think they're the best at rochambo. I think they
always win the championships. So they need they need like
a backup team their quarterback to do the rock paper sesssor.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
WSO RPS World twiir is of rochambo or rock paper anyway.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Yeah, there you go. All right, So that's the Super Bowl, Nate.
I'm sorry that your team lost. I'm happy that I
won our prop bet. And you know, I think we
both agree that people gloating is never a good luck no.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
So you know, for example, for example, you wouldn't have
mentioned the prep bet five times there.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
I think.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Just once in our summation of the segment, which we
always do. We always sum up what we've talked about.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
You're awesome bragging about a bet with you minus four hundred.
I've been the sumach up tomorrow minus a million. All right,
all right, all right, let's we have other things to discuss.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
That is true, we have important things to discuss. So
let's talk about what has been going on in the
last few weeks of the Trump presidency. So he's been,
you know, splashing around quite a bit, trying different things,
all of these executive orders, seeing what's going to stick.
And as we've said before on the show, a lot
of this is distraction, right, that is his tactic. How
(09:37):
do you distract people from figuring out what's actually important
and keep them just constantly putting out small fires so
that when the big one comes along, you kind of
just let it go. So let's talk about what is
actually important to focus on and what we can ignore
for now. So maybe as a start, Nate, let's just
talk about some general heuristics, some good rules for choosing
(10:00):
what to pay attention to. So when you try to
figure out, okay, what should I be focusing on? What
comes to mind? How do you figure out orties, whether
it's Trump or anything else, just in general, what am
I going to pay attention to?
Speaker 3 (10:14):
Well?
Speaker 2 (10:15):
My process is weird because I'm thinking about, like what
things can I write about? So and also I have
this kind of like distaining for like the daily politics crap.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Like I never watch cable.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
News, right, I read the newspapers, I guess, or read
the digital version of the newspapers.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
But like, so you know, to.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Me to just say, like the thing that gets partisans
wiled up on like X, blue sky whatever else, like
don't pay attention to that generally speaking, right, because they
are trying to, like you know, it's like following your
the Yankees or your favorite baseball team, where it's like, yeah,
there's going to be a headline every day, and like
it probably isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Yeah, I think I think that that's actually an important thing.
I to try to kind of stay away from daily
news because it's really really easy to get completely kind
of caught up in this attention hijacking, right, and like
the culture of momentary outrage. Oh he said this, this happened.
(11:11):
And if you're too online, I think that nothing hijacks
your attention more than that, right, Like the overly like
being too involved in all of this discourse and every
single thing that comes up. I think that that distracts
you from bigger picture things. So something I always ask myself,
is okay, you know, how important is this in the
long term? What are the implications? Is this something that
(11:33):
we're going to care about in a week? Right? Is
this something that we're going to care about in a month.
If the answer is yes, okay, maybe pay attention to it.
If the answer is no, then I can safely avoid
this particular conversation and not be a part of it.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Like if you go to like MSNBC dot com right now,
right read the headlines. One's about Kanye West, one's about
like Steve Bannon, and then Eric Adams. Right, one's about
Rob Lagoyevitch, the former government Illinois who has got partnered
or is going to get pardoned. You know, Trump's frustration
with deportation numbers will likely lead to more chaos, right
is the headline of one article. So it's all stuff
(12:08):
that like is designed to get an emotional reaction out
of partisans.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Yes, I can, I can. I make a confession, and
I hope that they well they will take it personally,
but I hope this does not affect my future career.
I don't think I've ever gone to MSNBC dot com
to the front page like that is just not a
website that I have ever visited unless someone has given
me a link to a specific article that I should
(12:34):
be reading for some specific reason. Right, there are places
that are meant to hijack your attention, and that to me,
just like Fox News like on the other side, to me,
those are places that are meant to kind of filment,
outrage and hijack your attention, and I just try to
stay out of that, right, Like, that is not how
I want to consume my news. And we'll be back
(12:55):
right after this. So, Nate, what are some of the
things that Trump has done that are actually important, meaningful,
consequential that we should actually be paying attention to.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
The fact that the Trump administration seems a little bit
indifferent toward separation of powers. You know, I had this
article called one hundred and thirteen predictions about Trump and
like le of various things go right or run, And
you know, I had what's a chance that he'll disobey
a Supreme Court order?
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Which I had ten percent.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Which sounds low because usually it's conservaed Supreme Court, right,
so it's like you would if he could. But like,
but you know, we are getting more and more issues
where they're like Okay, go ahead, and we're gonna do
a bunch of shit that we know is illegal, and
go ahead and stop us. We have first mover advantage,
and then we will interpret very liberally every ambiguity and
(14:00):
things like that. And you know, and so that whole
thrust of things. I mean, you know, people start all
of a sudden saying no, this is a coup and
that auto golpe is a self coup where you get
in power and then destroy And like, I think the
problem is that like the audience for this message are
people who are like already convinced and because this is
(14:21):
this like abstract thing, and you know, the thing is
like he's targeting us aid, you know, foreign assistance, even
though if you kind of look from an ev standpoint,
probably has a lot of utilitarian benefit.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
Four and eight is not a very popular program, right.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
A lot of the other executive worriers are doing are
things and are popular enough, or they have a mandate
to do based on the election, on the immigration stuff,
for example, And so I don't know, I uh, what
do you think, Maria?
Speaker 1 (14:53):
No, I mean, I totally agree with you that like
number one issue, which underlies a lot of what's going
on is a lack of regard for separation of power.
And I don't think that this is just Trump. I
think that this is also kind of Congress lacking a
backbone and not being like, hey, you're taking away powers
that should be ours, right, instead of doing that and
being like, hey, guys, like this is ours. We're the
(15:15):
ones who who control the purse strings, right, We're the
ones who do these allocations the budget committee matters. Instead
they're like being Okay, you know you gave us, you
gave another executive order. Okay, that's cool, Like it's what
we want, so it's fine. But I think that it's
very short term thinking, and I think that's incredibly dangerous. Right,
So that to me is very worrisome because we want
(15:37):
a government that does check each other, that you know,
that is responsive, and we do want a judicial system
that is listened to. Like it's actually going to be
very scary if Trump just flat out defies a judicial order, right, Like,
what's going to happen? Then is the rest of government
going to grow a spine or not? So I agree
with you that that is very important, and I also
(15:58):
but there are other issues that I think are part
of this that I think are also worth paying attention.
I actually think that cutting the funding to USAID is
is a major issue and not good because you can
obviously frame it and oh, like we only care about America, right,
America first. But if you think about what AID is
(16:20):
actually being cut, right, people are not getting life saving medications,
like you actually have a body count, right, you will
have people who will die without access to these medications,
without access to some of these programs, And so I
think that's a huge deal. And people are just looking
the other way and saying, well, I don't care, it's
not me, it could be you, right like that that's
(16:41):
actually incredibly important.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Look, it could be an opportunity for private charitable organizations,
which are sometimes more efficient than the government, to step up.
But yeah, like you almost can kind of like the
equilibrium research that you know, it probably is pretty good
from utilitarian standpoint, because it's unpopular, right for America to
do something that doesn't help us directly, and of course,
you know, having more stability in the world can help
(17:03):
us directly, can help us, but like it kind of
has to be good in order for us to tolerate it.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
You know, exactly.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
The third thing that I would say, though, since I
do come from academia and I am very well aware
of the importance of research, I'm actually very worried about
the NIH funding as well, which is part of you
know what Trump has been trying to do over and
over and over, Like, he has tried to do this repeatedly,
and I think that it's really going to if it
(17:34):
holds right, because people are actually trying to protest this,
then capping the indirect cost at fifteen percent is going
to be a huge blow to research in the United States,
to innovation in the United States, to the number of
people who can and will stay here. And I think
it's actually something that will make us a whole lot
less competitive on the global arena than we currently are. Like,
(17:58):
it's a big fuck you to research. By the way,
this is from someone who has written about and talked
about the fact that there's tons of administrative bloat in academia, right,
this ain't the way to get rid of it, and
this is aiming at something very different despite what the
rhetoric might say.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Yeah, I mean, this is also one of the you know,
I've had enough fights with enough like woke academics over
the years and criticisms over the politicization and research and
just not politicized but just kind of crappy research that's
you know, p hacking and things like that. You know, look,
the good news is all over, and I might make
all this more popular again, but like we're only three
(18:34):
weeks in, and I understand that people feel overwhelmed.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Yeah, and as you say, like it is showing a
disdain for a very real public good, right for things
that help both the United States and people individually, for
really crucial research. And you know, I was I was
talking to my sister who is an mdphd who runs
a lab who's fund to get is getting cut who
you know, it doesn't know if the NAH grant that
(18:58):
she was supposed to get is actually going to come through.
And she's doing like life saving work with infants and
infant health and all of these different things, and we
were just talking about it, and I was trying to
calm her down because obviously, like she's very upset. And
I was like, look like, you know, if this makes
him unpopular enough, if he tries to do too much,
then in two years, you know, Democrats should be able
(19:19):
to win the midterm elections and blah blah blah. She's like, yeah,
but two years could actually be enough to kill a
lot of crucial research programs and to get people to
leave the United States right to get some research, to
go to Europe, to go to Asia, to go to
places that will actually be able to carry out the
types of work that they need to be carrying out.
(19:40):
And so I think that in general we've seen both
for Milan and from Trump, this like anti anti public
good but also anti science stance that is really playing
out here and it affects not just science.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Right.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
One of the reasons that I that the NIH was
so important was because the federal funding actually helped a
lot of other research go forward that wouldn't have otherwise
been able to go forward because private corporations tend to
give a lot less money and tend to have a
(20:15):
lot lower limits on that overhead. And that's in the
universities were able to kind of make up the shortfall
because they had NAH funding. And this helped funding in
the arts right, funding in areas in the humanities that
won't otherwise get funding because there ain't much money for them.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
I mean, look, maybe forcing people to be more efficient
isn't such a bad thing.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
I mean, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
It's like, this is an efficiency. It's already incredibly efficient,
is what I was telling you. Even though even though,
like I said, no academia has bloated, like we started
this conversation, I am very anti academic bloat. But this
isn't the way. This is like taking a hammer and
being like, let me just crush academia. And I think
you agree with that, as opposed to saying like, okay,
(21:01):
let's figure out where inefficiencies are. It's the opposite of
what we talked about last week with the FAA and
like how you were saying, well, just throwing more money
at it, and I was like, no, don't throw more money
at it. Try to figure out how the money's allocated.
How do we do this more efficiently. Here, it's the
exact opposite. It's just saying, well, let's just take money away.
There are entire universities that actually cannot have a research
(21:22):
program without this. You know, sure, like a Harvard, a
Yale will will probably be fine, even though the research
is going to get worse, because they can figure out
how to deal with the shortfall. But schools that aren't
like that are not going to be able to.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
When the church and students was it eighty thousand? You know,
I mean use that money.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Hey, they do, That's the thing they use. They do.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
They have way more money than indowments than they needs.
Start actually using those endowmonds. You don't need. You don't
need to be a little hedgephone.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
So I'm saying Harvard and Yale will be fine, but
what about everywhere else? Those aren't the only two schools
where research happens.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
All I'm saying is like, is like you have to
because there's so much you're trying to cut costs. There's
so much like special leading, right, you can always make
an exception for this program or that program. And so
I think strategically like the notion of like ripping the
band aid off, and you know, if you're trying to.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Like this isn't This isn't ripping the band aid off.
This is cutting off the arm. And I think we
will see that if this actually holds, I am willing
to bet that research in the US, advancements in the US,
the US as an innovator in any field of science
is going to just go away.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Well, we're innovators because of the private sector. Mostly No,
we're in.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
But you forget how much of the private sector is
done by academics who went into academia who have that knowledge.
People are going to stop. But if you know you
can't get funding and you can't do your research, why
in the world would you go into a PhD program?
Why would you run a lab? Right? People go from
academia to industry. Where does industry get its superstars from academia?
(22:59):
Where is that pipeline going to go? If we don't
have fund they are going to go abroad. They are
going to places where they can do their work and
they can do their research. So I think that you
need to think more strategically, more long term about this.
And I think you actually agree with me because you
agreed with me at the beginning and right now you're
just disagreeing with for the hell of it, which is
never a good reason to disagree with.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
Yeah, Like I think there's like I mean, a big
guy who people believe we're in mean reversion, right, And
like I don't think you can like take these three weeks,
which have been dramatic and have been in some ways
very effective for Trump, far more well planned from an
effectiveness standpoint than his first turn.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
I know you feel like extractl like that forward, right.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
Well I hope not. I hope not. But so, like
I said, like, it would be great if this were temporary,
you know, if we can't extrapolate it forward. But I'm
just saying, our question is what should people focus on
what's actually important and not distraction. I think that this
is important and not distraction. Right. People actually need to
focus on this so that it will reverse, right, so
that it will revert so that people realize that this
(24:00):
is an important issue, unlike a lot of other things.
So what we're talking about right now is how to
set priorities, how to focus on the things that actually matter.
And I think we both agree that this is something
that actually matters. Once again, the easier thing to do,
the lazier thing to do, is just look at the
talking points and be like, yeah, I agree with that, yeah,
cut bloat, yeah, like yeah, this is all good.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Right.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
That's that's just a very lazy, intellectually way to look
at it, To look at the talking points that are
being thrust at us and just be like okay, yeah
that makes sense, of course, right, that's the that's the
point of talking points. So I think that as we prioritize,
as we think about what should we pay attention to
of the last three weeks, separation of powers, USAID, NIH
(24:44):
and other science funding. I think these are three things
that actually matter, and there are a bunch of things
that don't matter or that won't matter, or that will
be reversed. Like I don't actually think that the birthright
citizenship is that important because that's going to get blocked, right,
like that is. And if it doesn't get blocked, like
holy shit, then we have much bigger problems, right because
that's unconstitutional.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Look, I mean there's a you know, so I would
say that, you know, Trump has some degree of mandate
on immigration stuff and DEI stuff, and so that stuff's
not that's a president. It doesn't even be generating that
much outrage. Even some of the you know, tran stuff
seems to have a relatively muted reaction. I mean, I
(25:27):
don't know who's wrecking to anything really, right. It's heart
because there are these issues that are like cultural touchstones
that like you can read some mandate and have the
electorate voted, then you have these things that are like
these abstract, very bad things that people like you and
I might say, are the highest ev concerns marrier, right,
And then there's like a third bucket of like distractions
(25:49):
like the Elon Musk like.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Nazi or Italian where we're calling it.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Solute and just like the stupid shit Trump says from
day to day and the owning the lib stuff and
like you know, and it's like the problem is like
the most you know, the terroriffs are like.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Important economically, but.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
Like the terrorists are like okay, if you want to
be ma Familian about it, then like let Trump do.
Let these terrorists and like fucking cause inflation, and fine,
you're gonna lose popularity, right, So it's like not like,
you know, I don't know if you want people like
marching in the streets against tariffs exactly.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
It's hard to know.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
I think they're playing I think they're playing a pretty
effective tactical game of like not giving Democrats things that
are like.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Oh absolutely, they're crushing it big.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
I mean, there are things that they're on the wrong
side of public opinion, but there are things that are
abstract and hard to actualize, right, and then things that
are right that are reached democrats. But it's just kind
of I don't know, it's been, it's been. You know,
what I would say for Demcrats is like it will
get worse for Trunk, It may get worse for people
who don't like the things Trump's doing. But like, you know,
he starts out less popular than any president except for
(27:01):
his first turn. Now it's a little bit of an
exception because like he was president before. It's kind of
being a continuation. So he is more popul I mean,
he is net popular now, right, but like that probably
won't be true in six months, nine months and having
little patience, you know, I mean, you know, I don't
think publishing like blame Trump for like planes literally falling
out of the sky two weeks into his term, but
(27:23):
they might two years into his turn. And like that's
a reasonable heuristic. It's actually pretty smart that, like, yeah,
the day you take over, it's probably not your.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
Fault, but you know, after that it might be.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
And so I don't know, he is spending his political
I mean, went less of Democrats is like spending have
a fucking game plan for the first one hundred days.
But although even then, right, a lot of things Biden
did in the first hundred days was like through both
policy and rhetoric, kind of open up the border a
lot more, and you know, pass a lot of executive
(27:57):
orders that included environmental regulations and racial equity regulations and
things like that later made the stimulus package is harder
to implement and slower. So like a lot of things
that were kind of hidden from the public eye wound
up costing Biden and Harris down the road. And so
maybe Democrats can take like a little bit of a
lesson from that, right that Trump is pushing a lot
(28:19):
of buttons, not knowing we're all about leads and the
consequences might not be clear until a year or two year,
four years from now.
Speaker 3 (28:25):
But like he's running a lot of liability.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Okay, So it seems like we're both agreed that, you know,
the single most important thing is that the separation of
powers is eroding, is not being honored, and that this
is the thing that could actually wind up if it
goes too far, being very difficult, I'm not going to
say impossible, but very difficult to kind of roll back unravel.
(28:49):
This is the thing that if you are going to
pay attention to one thing, it's this right that we
need the separation of powers to be honored, USAI, d
NAH funding. All these things also important, but separation of powers.
If we're if we're gonna say one thing to focus on,
it's going to be that.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
I agree, And then you know, in terms of like
what not to focus on. I mean, Trump has always
been very good at having distractions. I think some battles
were lost in public opinion with restection, like immigration and
things like that, and the goal there is probably to
try to rebuild public opinion from the ground.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Uh. But like, if there's any issue on which Trump
like had amendate, it's immigration and inflation, which is actually
kind of fucking up by implementing teriffs.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
That is absolutely true. Also, egg prices are not doing
anyone any favors. Let's take a break and talk about housing.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
Nate.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Last time we spoke, you were looking for an apartment
in New York City. First of all, wow, like I
never thought you would leave your apartment, So, so talk us
through that decision, how it's going.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Both of My landlord isn't listening to this. My partner
and I have always had these kind of unusual, funky spaces,
like about the Midwest. You're like kind of like having
our space, right, But like it's often in buildings that
like where the space is oddly laid out or where
the amenities aren't aren't great.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
I know, we just had like I mean, the elevator
in our building.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Is broken half the time, and I don't want to
say where I live, but I'm not sure it's totally
up to code.
Speaker 3 (30:42):
Right, we have the water out for.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Three days in the middle of February where the pipe
is froze and things like that, and like it just
someone of my big gto theories is like you are
paying for everything involved in your apartment bundle, whether you
like use it or not. Right, So like if you
were paying a big premium to have like a large
space and you don't need all that space, then then
(31:09):
you probably wanted to downsize. Either you're saving money or
you know, in our case, I don't think the goals
save money, but just to have like to stop creating
all these amenities for for a space because.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
Ourmenities are not very good.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
And also just like there's shit like the fact that
like because the building is pre war and old, like
our heating bill is really freaking expensive because it's like
very inefficient to like heat and cool the building and
things and things like that. Right, if you have days
where the water isn't working for to stay in hotel,
I mean, you can deduct that from your rent, right,
But like that's that's a big so. And also like
(31:42):
we feel like having a new neighborhood is exciting. There's
like some degree of diminishing returns. We've been in like
the same place for gosh twelve years now, and like
New York's a big city, right, neither of us work
at a permanent location, and so therefore, like you know,
(32:02):
that should make you relatively indifferent toward where you live
within reason. I mean literally, like I kind of like
I just like made like a little math of like
you know, fifteen points that we visit often, right, from
like friends places in Brooklyn, to like our favorite restaurants
like the Dentists, to like, you know, sports arenas. The
(32:22):
airport's really important. I travel a lot, and so like, sure,
are you more convenient to at least one or two
of the three major metro area airports in New York.
That kind of thing is important, and we kind of
discover that like actually, like basically anywhere within the lower
half of Manhattan is kind of equally convenient to the
places we need to go, and so therefore go ahead
and like tack the neighborhood that you might find interesting.
(32:46):
We've been gravitating a little bit toward the east side.
I don't want to jinx anything by saying properties that
we may or may not be in the midst of
applying to now.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
And this is just for a rental, by the way,
we're not buying.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
But yeah, it's trying to figure out what things do
we actually value and then and then what things do
other people value that we don't value as much? Right,
Like we looked like one place in cell See it's
like this ground floor apartment kind of this brown stone
that has like very attractive dining living room area with
(33:20):
like an outdoor courtyard, right, and then you go down
to the base where the bedroom's are office hour and
it's kind of dreary, right, But you can imagine like
for a certain type of person that like likes to
have a lot of like house parties, right, And like
we've arrived in a certain kind of perfect Chelsea flat
for this like exact purpose, but it's not as nice
(33:41):
in terms of like the living areas and things like that.
Speaker 3 (33:44):
Which is kind of where we spend most of our time.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
So it's like, if that's someone else's dream, you know,
you don't want to pay for someone else's dream because
it's factored into like the market.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Pridace.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Now that makes sense, I think. I think it's a
really important point to say, like what are my most
important things? What do I want to pay for? What
do I not care about paying for? Otherwise you might
end up in uh, you know, nightmare situations or paying
for an apartment that you don't really that you're not
happy in.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
You know.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Another example is, you know, we thought briefly about like
looking at a place in Miami. This is kind of
during the COVID era where Miami kind of came back
online before and now I'm mostly positive with somewhat able
feelings toward Miami, but we were into you know, Miami
things like a lot of middle aged gains, I guess,
you know.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
And at first we.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
Had a friend who lives in Coconut Grow, which is
a very nice community, right, but like it's very desirable
because like it has by far the better school options
in terms of think both public and private schools and
other parts of Miami.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
So if you don't have kids in school, then like
it's huge. You really really really would have.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
To love Coconut Grove in order to like to pay
this premium for a service that you don't need, Right.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Yeah, No, I think that that's really important and something
that people, by the way, underestimate how much of a
toll it takes emotionally psychologically. There's a lot of research
on this. To commute long distances, right, it's actually very
not good for So that is something that I would
absolutely say, like, especially somewhere like New York, do you
(35:14):
take that into account? Schools are huge. So the apartment,
we looked at apartments I won't say the exact neighborhood
where I live, but we looked at apartments that are
literally a block apart, but they're in two different school zones.
And the price difference was insane, right, Like it was
an order of magnitude, and we don't have kids, Like
(35:35):
it doesn't really matter. I was like screw this, right,
like I do that, but it's one block apart, literally,
same size, same everything. And so I think that things
like that are actually quite important and can be game
changers if you're looking at an apartment in a smart
way I have had. I don't know if you've had
any nightmare apartments, but I've had one nightmare apartment where
(35:59):
should have known, right, if something is priced in a
way that makes no sense, there's probably something that you
don't realize. So I was able to rent two floor
garden duplex parlor garden duplex in the West Village on
West eleventh Street within my budget. Like I was like,
holy shit, right, Like, you can never you can never
(36:21):
afford something like this. It turns out that the building
was basically condemned. That we there were mice in the
walls and just like running everywhere. There was no insulation.
So in the winter, like the wind just like literally
went through the apartment. There was mold everywhere. So we
(36:43):
did an air quality check and like realize that, holy shit,
like the stuff we're breathing in is really not good.
And then the building ended up being gutted after you know,
we and our neighbors left. This was before I wrote
the Confidence Game. But if something is too good to
be true, it probably is, so.
Speaker 3 (37:01):
Do your due diligence.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
Yeah, and in the reverse, but I mean, sometimes people
print something on the market and just overreesumate the demand
for it, so you can have things that are priced
the rationally high, but like there's not really bargains relative
to the overall demand function of the city.
Speaker 1 (37:16):
Absolutely, and I think that it's also the case where
you're probably not going to be able to time the
market right. You will either get lucky or unlucky, because,
especially in New York, places don't sit around. Sometimes they
do right. It could be in a really horrible market,
but oftentimes the best case is to just go for it.
(37:37):
My two best rental apartments that were both tiny, but
like they were just ridiculous deals that enabled me to
live in parts of New York that I never would
have been able to afford as a twenty one year
old moving to the city. I saw them before they
hit the market. Literally, I was the first person to
see both of them. One the guy reached out to
me because I had posted on Craigslist. This was back
(37:58):
in the day when Craigslist was a big thing. I
was a senior in college. Made a posting saying, hey, like,
I'm does anyone know of a you know, studio apartment
in the West Village. This is my budget, and this
guy just reached out. He's like it's not on the
market yet. But and I ended up getting a bus,
like the Chinatown bus from Boston to New York to
(38:21):
see this apartment and just gave him money right away
and ended up signing a lease that was, you know,
started two weeks before I needed it to start. But
like I never the apartment was one thousand dollars a
month in the West Village fifty in the West Village,
in the West Village. Yes, it was on Perry Street.
(38:44):
The guy who actually it was, yeah, Perry, and like
it was premium. It was between Bleeker and Hudson, Like
just absolutely premium location. It was the parlor floor, so
huge windows. It was tiny, It was less than one
hundred square feet. It was ninety square feet payoff. Yes,
it was ninety square feet, so that was the trade off.
I lived in a glorified walk in closet, but man,
(39:06):
I was happy to wake up in that walk in
closet every single day. Yeah, my bed was lofted right
under the ceiling. And I had like this rickety ladder
that I had to climb up to make it up, like.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
A capsule hotel as I called them.
Speaker 1 (39:19):
In Asia, exactly exactly. But I had a full bathroom.
It had a little kitchen like it wasn't. It was
all in the one room right like it's it was
a mini fridge, you know, it wasn't. But it had
a stove that had like, it had everything I needed.
And I was you know, I was twenty one years
old and I was in the West Village and I
was so thrilled to be able to have that apartment.
Speaker 3 (39:39):
You're baking in the bread catches on fire.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
I mean, but look if if you don't need space
and don't pay for space and.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
Like, And at that point, I was still working in
an office. I wasn't working from home.
Speaker 2 (39:48):
Right.
Speaker 1 (39:48):
This is when I was working in advertising as a copywriter,
and I was very not happy at my job. But hey,
I had a great launch pad. Good luck night. I
hope that you are able to get one of the
apartments that you want to and I look forward. I
would look forward to a housewarming in a wonderful neighborhood
that you are excited about and that you get to
(40:09):
to explore. Absolutely, Maria, let us know what you think
of the show. Reach out to us at Risky Business
at pushkin dot fm. And by the way, if you're
a Pushkin Plus subscriber, we have some bonus content for you.
We'll be answering a listener question each week that's coming
(40:29):
up right after the credits.
Speaker 2 (40:31):
And if you're not subscribing yet, consider signing up for
just six ninety nine a month.
Speaker 3 (40:36):
What a nice price.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
You get access to all that premium content and ad
for listening across Pushkin's entire network of shows.
Speaker 1 (40:43):
Risky Business is hosted by me Maria Kanakova.
Speaker 2 (40:45):
And by me Nate Silver. The show is a co
production of Pushkin Industries and iHeartMedia. This episode was produced
by Isabel Carter. Our associate producer is Gabriel Hunter Chang.
Sally Helm is our editor, and our executive producer is
Jacob Goldstein. Mixing by Sarah Bruger.
Speaker 1 (41:02):
If you like the show, please rate and review us
so other people can find us too. Thanks so much
for tuning in.
Speaker 2 (41:10):
Spat, Fumble and FA
Hosts And Creators
Maria Konnikova
Nate Silver
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com