Patrick O'Shaughnessy

You might call them American Dynamism and Andreessen Horowitz, whether that's robotics or small modular reactors, really exciting, big technology ideas, which you understand the potential.

Like if we had an in-home robot, that'd be awesome.

But it's really hard to figure out how long it will take, maybe similar to how long Waymo took or something.

How do you think about investing in those kinds of companies where it's incredibly exciting?

Clearly, if we had it and it worked, it would be really valuable, but it's really hard to know how long it's going to take to work.

What's the lesson from Waymo there on what it means to start to work?

What do you think in the history of Waymo was the point at which you would have said, OK, now something happened and that makes this more investable?

It feels like the appropriate time to disclose that you and I went to college together.

The reason I mentioned that is usually when we get together, we don't jump into talking about investing.

We talk about other stuff, which makes me realize I don't think I've ever actually asked you, what is your investment philosophy or strategy or style or taste?

What is it and how did it develop?

But he learned them all.

Do you have a favorite counterexample to the technical terminator?

Somebody that is completely non-technical.

If I had access to your entire calendar for the last five years or something and saw all the companies and the debates where you ultimately didn't invest, but almost did, what would I learn from that batch of companies and founders?

But why did cloud play out the way it did?

Is it just size of market?

I think it's size.

Is it that simple that if a market's big enough, you're just going to have multiple winners and not a winner take all?

I want to talk about competition in our industry for investment opportunities in the market leaders led by technical terminators or others.