Anthropic's IPO Filing, Elon's Talarico Obsession, and Elizabeth Holmes' Box Office Surprise

Kara opens by describing a family weekend at the University of Michigan with Louis, Megan, and Alex. They attended a football game at the 111,000-seat “Big House,” ate enormous steaks, and enjoyed unusually warm weather. Kara says the Michigan and Indiana fans got along, sang together, and created a temporary escape from the political and online noise represented by Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the internet. Scott reports doing essentially the same thing at the University of Virginia, although he jokes that a UVA football game is like a German PBS documentary compared with Michigan’s superhero movie. Scott uses parents’ weekend to discuss the quiet anxiety many families experience when a child leaves for college. Some students struggle with homesickness, social rejection, or feeling overwhelmed, while wealthy parents often treat a traditional bachelor’s degree as the only route to happiness and purpose even though two-thirds of students do not complete that path. When a child is socially thriving and learning about themselves, Scott says parents’ weekend feels like a “48-hour exhale.” Kara agrees, emphasizing how rewarding it was to see her sons Louis and Alex together. Scott also tells a comic story about his son putting an arm around him during a game, only to realize the gesture was part of a ritual in which students put their arms around one another and sing after touchdowns.

The hosts move to elections abroad and argue that a student-led opposition victory in Serbia is the most encouraging development. Scott sees a broader revolt by young people against older leaders who, in his view, vote themselves more power, money, and opportunities for corruption. He connects that anger to unaffordable living costs and unsustainable public spending, citing the statistic that in France one-third of the education budget goes toward pensions for retired teachers. Kara notes political engagement among young people on the Michigan campus, where she saw many “vote Abdul” signs but no signs for the MAGA movement. They then discuss Barack Obama campaigning for Democrats before the U.S. midterms. Kara plays his joke comparing Trump’s White House renovations—gold decoration, a ballroom, a paved-over Rose Garden, and a helicopter pad—to “Savannah” opening a Cheesecake Factory. Scott says ridicule is more powerful than indignation: “Comedy is a strategy. Outrage is a hobby.” He believes Obama’s carefully managed appearances can add several percentage points to Democratic candidates, although Obama cannot rescue a bad candidate. Scott warns Democrats not to interpret a possible midterm victory as a durable comeback. He calls it potentially a “red rip tide,” meaning voters may simply dislike Republicans more at this moment. Democrats would need immediate proposals on affordability, progressive taxation, health-care and economic security, and tariff policy to turn a one-night electoral decision into a lasting relationship.

Kara and Scott focus on Elon Musk’s growing political spending. Musk has given another $76 million to his political action committee, bringing his contributions to Republican groups during the cycle to more than $445 million. The PAC is attacking Texas Democrat James Talarico, who says Musk wants Texas’s land, water, taxpayer dollars, and a personal senator, and declares that Texas is not for sale. The hosts connect Musk’s interest in Talarico to Musk’s move from California to Texas and his fear of a Talarico-led Texas government. Scott argues that the scale sounds abstract, so he offers a comparison: for a trillionaire, $443 million is roughly like a millionaire spending $443 to stop a political candidate who threatened the person’s car wash and government contracts. He says campaign-finance reform and more progressive taxation are necessary, not to stop Musk from building companies or investing capital, but to tax gains before they are used for political campaigns or luxury consumption. Kara agrees that the money is becoming politically and psychologically shocking, calling Musk a “bond villain.” Scott sees one possible silver lining: money may be producing diminishing returns. He argues that $440 million could once have elected a president in a close contest but may not even secure a Senate seat now. They compare the spending to a subsidy for local television stations, which lose money most of the year and recover it during election advertising. Scott hopes the result resembles Wisconsin, where Musk’s spending did not deliver the expected outcome.

Anthropic has formally filed for an IPO. Kara reports first-half 2026 revenue of $16.3 billion, up from $1.2 billion a year earlier, an $80 billion net loss, more than $600 billion in future cloud-computing commitments, and concentration among five customers that represented about one-quarter of revenue during the first nine months of the year. Anthropic’s filing devotes 94 pages to risks, including rogue AI models and opposition to data centers. Co-founders including CEO Dario Amodei would retain 50.1% of the voting power, while the company had not yet disclosed its offering size or price. Scott calls Anthropic the fastest-scaling software company in history. He says revenue rose from $386 million in 2024 to $4.5 billion in 2025 and reached a roughly $40 billion annualized rate in the first half of 2026. He says the reported loss is misleading because $72 billion reflects an accounting charge when convertible debt converted into equity. Stripping that out, he estimates a roughly $9 billion loss and argues that a company growing this quickly, with high margins, could reach profitability. He remains skeptical of adjusted EBITDA and Anthropic’s revenue recognition. Anthropic books the full value of token sales, while OpenAI recognizes only the portion it retains after payments to “neo-clouds.” Still, Scott praises Anthropic’s operating efficiency: revenue per employee is about $6.6 million, up from $1.4 million a year earlier, and above every “Magnificent Seven” company except Nvidia. He estimates a possible IPO valuation around $2 trillion if Anthropic reaches $40 billion in revenue and can grow it fivefold.

Scott says Anthropic’s growth does not eliminate the risks surrounding the business. He worries that governments may respond to public fear with fragmented bans if regulators do not establish clear rules. He cites a stark difference in public attitudes: roughly 75% of Chinese respondents trust AI, compared with only 25% of Americans. He also says the main infrastructure constraint may not be chips but electricity, making Anthropic’s enormous future computing commitments vulnerable if revenue does not continue multiplying. The competitive threats are equally large. Nvidia may place more computing directly into phones, potentially changing the competitive position of large language models. Meta has a free model, a leading app-store position, a direct relationship with roughly half a billion businesses and three billion consumers, and the ability to distribute AI at enormous scale. Scott compares Anthropic to a blue whale surrounded by orcas: the company is currently growing at extraordinary speed, but competitors have strong incentives and resources to attack it. The filing’s own warnings trouble him. Anthropic says advanced AI could pose “catastrophic or existential risk to humanity,” that its models may behave in unintended, misaligned, or autonomous ways, and that capabilities may advance faster than society’s ability to validate and implement safety measures. Scott says that final warning raises a basic question: if the company cannot safely manage the product, why is the product being released publicly? Kara frames Anthropic as the Google-like center of an emerging ecosystem, while noting that OpenAI’s eventual IPO will be judged against Anthropic’s numbers.

Kara reports that Elon Musk has finally acknowledged that SpaceX restricted Ukraine’s access to Starlink, saying Ukraine violated the service’s terms by using it for offensive drone strikes. Ukraine disputes that explanation. Musk distinguishes Starlink from Starshield, saying Starshield is controlled by the U.S. government, but the hosts note that Ukraine experienced more than a week of disruptions that affected military operations and contributed to deaths. Kara says Starlink and Starshield later returned to normal speeds. Scott argues that Musk’s earlier denials were false and that an unaccountable private citizen should not be able to influence battlefield decisions for a country the United States supports. He compares the situation to a defense contractor secretly throttling guidance systems on military aircraft or nuclear submarines. If a general or defense-company CEO had done the equivalent, Scott says the person would be held accountable; Musk’s billionaire status should not create a different standard. Scott calls Musk, if he intentionally reduced Ukraine’s defensive capability and caused civilian deaths, “a traitor to the West.” He says Musk should be brought before Congress and that his lawyers may have urged him to admit the conduct before being questioned under oath. Kara emphasizes that concern is bipartisan and international, not merely a Democratic attack. They conclude that the government failed by allowing one unelected individual to hold such strategic power, while Scott says Democrats should focus on accountability rather than trying to impeach Trump immediately.

Kara reviews Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim’s nearly three-hour film “You Can See Everything,” about Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes. The film earned $45 million in two weeks, became the second-highest-grossing movie that weekend behind “Clayface,” and was made for only $7 million. Kara says it had the biggest debut for a non-musical documentary since Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” in 2004, and she understands why it is generating Oscar speculation, including possible Best Picture and acting nominations. Kara warns that the discussion contains spoilers and argues that the film should not be understood as a conventional documentary. It uses reenactments, music, thriller-like construction, and Fielder’s characteristic manipulation, leaving viewers unsure whether Fielder has been fooled by Holmes’s world or is pretending to be fooled in order to expose it. Kara praises Amanda Seyfried, who plays Holmes, as the film’s best element and says Holmes represents a familiar Silicon Valley archetype: constant denial, lying, criminal conduct, and self-presentation as the victim. She also finds Holmes’s husband villainous and notes that the film includes his penis, an image the hosts discuss at length. Scott has not seen the film because Holmes makes him uncomfortable, but Kara urges him to watch it for Seyfried’s performance and the film’s unusual form. Scott says he is not sympathetic to Holmes, though he questions whether a ten-year sentence fits the broader pattern of male founders who commit comparable fraud and receive less punishment. Holmes’s husband contacted Scott after hearing those comments, apparently asking whether he would support efforts to secure her early release; Scott declined.

For his win, Scott recommends “The Mosquito Bowl,” a Peter Berg film based on Buzz Bissinger’s 2022 book about four top American football players who joined the Marines after Pearl Harbor and prepared for the Battle of Okinawa. Scott praises its depiction of the Pacific theater and the brutality of war, comparing its battle scenes favorably with Steven Spielberg’s Omaha Beach sequence in “Saving Private Ryan.” He says the film is a useful corrective for people, including himself, who can be too hawkish about war because it shows the cost imposed on young soldiers. Scott’s fail is the normalization of Musk’s ability to affect military operations. He repeats that someone who throttled back Starlink or Starshield should be brought before Congress, arguing that wealth has given Musk an extraordinarily dangerous “hall pass.” He hopes the midterms produce a Democratic wave focused on affordability and accountability. Kara’s win is the third season of Netflix’s “Nobody Wants This.” She says the central couple, played by Kristen Bell and Adam Brody, is fine, but the standout relationship is between the woman’s sister Morgan, played by Justine Lupe, and the man’s brother Sasha, played by Timothy Simons, whom viewers know as Jonah from “Veep.” Kara finds their friendship unusually warm and refreshing. Her fail is executives who are suddenly trying to re-enter polite society after spending months aligning themselves with Trump. She says she has received invitations to several technology-company parties that did not exist earlier, and she is unimpressed by corporate attempts to look less politically opportunistic.