Super Investors Keep Buying These Stocks

Today on the Joseph Carlson Show, the super investors are buying. We're going to be going over their buys. We'll be reviewing the top 10 most bought stocks of Q4 of 2025 of these big investors. We'll also be looking at my personal favorites, the people like Devkant Dasaria, Chris Hohn. We've talked a little bit about his. We have

Bill Ackman that reported his. And of course, we have Warren Buffett, the big man himself. They all did some buys and they did some sells of stocks that you

himself. They all did some buys and they did some sells of stocks that you probably have in your portfolio. I'll be giving some insight and some thought over these 13F filings, especially given the fact that many of the companies these super investors held, many of the ones that they were buying a quarter ago are much cheaper today.

So we'll be looking over those price differences. Now, of course, we have a lot of other news to get into. For example, we have a lot of companies that just recently reported earnings. Booking Holdings is one of them that just reported today. The

company's down around 7%. We'll be going over that one. We have Walmart. That one

also just reported. Walmart is flat. The stock is up big this year. Walmart trades

at roughly double the valuation of Amazon. In fact, even more than double. So what

gives? Why is Walmart trading at such a high valuation? And is that fair? DoorDash

reported earnings. The stock is up as they posted some huge numbers. And we have Moody's. One of my large positions that just recently reported earnings is up around 5

Moody's. One of my large positions that just recently reported earnings is up around 5 % or 6 % after earnings because Moody's crushed it. Not only did they crush earnings, but they also gave one of the most significant takedowns to the bearish AI thesis that I've ever seen. Moody's killed that thesis. They destroyed it. We'll be

looking at the earnings report. We'll be going over what the CEO said himself about the whole concerns that they're going to be replaced by AI. And then finally, we have another fail of the week. This is one of the funniest things that I've seen recently. It looked like a sketch straight out of the office when Sam Altman

seen recently. It looked like a sketch straight out of the office when Sam Altman and Dario Amadei had to stand next to each other at this meeting in India and awkwardly pretend like they were holding hands when they weren't. It was a very interesting situation. We'll be going over it and showing the full video in the fail

interesting situation. We'll be going over it and showing the full video in the fail of the week. So we have a lot of news to get into today. And

just a quick mention, if you haven't tried it out, we have around 13 ,000 people now using Qualtrum. That's with no marketing, no affiliates, just people that have heard about it and used it. And the reason that it's growing so much is because it's good. It is the best stock analysis tool for investors, tailor -made for investors

it's good. It is the best stock analysis tool for investors, tailor -made for investors focusing on long -term compounding. Qualtrum helps you easily understand a company. It has charts and graphs and earnings calendars. It also provides context to what you're doing. We recently

just built an advanced chart creator, which allows you to see companies and compare opportunities in very interesting ways. So try it out now. It's completely risk -free. You have

a seven -day free trial on the monthly plan, and you can join at Qualtrum .com. Now, as we look at the activities of super investors, I think this is

.com. Now, as we look at the activities of super investors, I think this is actually one of the most interesting time periods to look at, because what we're doing is we're comparing what the market looks like today, with many of the big companies have sold down significantly, compared to what super investors were doing two and a half months ago, what they were doing as of December of 2025. Remember, these portfolios, the

way that they look was as of the end of 2025. That's when valuations were much higher. That's when a lot of this anthropic fares were not priced in. So

much higher. That's when a lot of this anthropic fares were not priced in. So

we get a look at what the companies are now and what they were paying for them just a couple months ago. We can start off by looking at Bill Ackman. Bill Ackman released a report going over some of his data, but we have

Ackman. Bill Ackman released a report going over some of his data, but we have the full trade history here. We have his 13F filing. This reveals all of his U .S. stocks. The biggest change is that he bought Meta, with an 11 .37

U .S. stocks. The biggest change is that he bought Meta, with an 11 .37

% waiting, which immediately makes Meta one of his top positions. So it's number, it's number five here, already a very big position. Bill Ackman works with large positions.

He has a concentrated portfolio, but this is a real buy. This isn't symbolic. It's

not a tracking position. He believes in Meta. He thinks it's a really good risk -adjusted return. I also bought heavily into Meta over the past couple of months. Now,

-adjusted return. I also bought heavily into Meta over the past couple of months. Now,

I bought into this position prior to knowledge that Bill Ackman was also buying the position, so it wasn't based off of his buy. But in some cases, when you're doing research, your thoughts align with other investors. I made Meta overall a significant position.

It's my third largest holding. It's a $150 ,000 position. It's traded down around $12 ,000 to $13 ,000, but this is a large position, and I will continue to add to Meta if this stock trades down meaningfully. If it goes down even further, I'll continue to buy it because I am very bullish on this company. The

thesis for Meta is rather simple. I've highlighted a couple times, and it mirrors exactly what Bill Ackman said about the company. Basically, Meta is a cheap stock that's growing fast. It's a cheap stock that's growing fast that has a very wide moat. When

fast. It's a cheap stock that's growing fast that has a very wide moat. When

you have those three things, big moat, inexpensive, and fast growth, that equates to usually an attractive opportunity. In most cases, there's a catch. There's something else going on, but with Meta, the catch is that they're spending a lot on CapEx, and to me, that's not a big enough catch. That is something that Meta is deciding to do.

It's a capital allocation decision, and I think that they're going to have great returns on it. When we look at how cheap Meta is, I just want to highlight

on it. When we look at how cheap Meta is, I just want to highlight this. Meta is trading at a 22 forward PE ratio. That includes

this. Meta is trading at a 22 forward PE ratio. That includes

all of the investments they're making into their reality labs. So the whole thing where they're investing in all of this hardware, where they're investing in all their AI models, where they're investing in all of this stuff that's very expensive and not giving them a return, that's included in the 22 PE ratio. If you were to just look at the core business, Meta trades at 18 times its core business. It's

very cheap. Any way you put it, it's very cheap. And as for the CapEx, it is true maybe you're concerned that Mark Zuckerberg's just going to throw away all your money. Instead of returning it through buybacks and dividends, he's just going to burn

your money. Instead of returning it through buybacks and dividends, he's just going to burn it or light it on fire. In either case, Meta is growing its operating income like crazy. The organic growth power of the company is growing. And the decision to

like crazy. The organic growth power of the company is growing. And the decision to spend money on CapEx is a deliberate, willful decision. It's not something being enacted upon them. It's not another competitor taking market share. They're not losing to anyone. They're choosing

them. It's not another competitor taking market share. They're not losing to anyone. They're choosing

to do this and they could reverse the decision at any time. The CapEx is not an intrinsic problem for the company. It's not something that has a terminal value risk for it. And I believe Meta is a great opportunity. So I 100 % agree with Bill Ackman here. Obviously I'm buying the stock at the same time, but we both agree on this one. Now here's where we differ. I've held on to

Google after having it be a massive winner. Bill Ackman also had Google. It was

a massive winner for him as well, going up double. And he reduced the position significantly, around 87%. Now I hold Google both in the passive income portfolio, $109 ,000 and it's $44 ,000 in the green. If we switch over to the story fund, I also hold it here. We have another $71 ,000 position. This one's

a bit older, so it's performed even better at $43 ,000 in the green. So

about $90 ,000 to $100 ,000 in the green overall. And when I look at Bill Ackman selling his Google position, I actually don't disagree with this. I think it makes sense. I don't think it's such a bad move from Bill Ackman. The thought

makes sense. I don't think it's such a bad move from Bill Ackman. The thought

process is pretty simple. Last year, Google was artificially depressed. The stock price was super low because of ChatGPT and because of the overhang of potentially having to sell off Chrome and breaking up the company. Neither of those things turned out to be that significant of a problem. Google competed fiercely with ChatGPT, holding its own, and then they weren't forced to sell off Chrome. So Google thrived. The company doubled in price. The

valuation went from the low 20s to even below 20, to now the high 20s, up to almost 34 PE ratio. So the valuation has expanded significantly. With Google, you got the best of both worlds. You got earnings growth with massive valuation expansion, the combination of which equals massive returns. So 100 % returns in one year. That's pretty

good. It makes sense that now he wants to take some gains. It makes sense that he wanted to pare back the position and move into something else. What did

he buy as a result of his Google sale? Well, what he bought was he bought Amazon. This is the big surprise that we didn't see in his most recent

bought Amazon. This is the big surprise that we didn't see in his most recent update, but we see it here in the 13F filing. Back in Q4 of 2025, he sold Google to buy Amazon. Amazon's another company that I'm very bullish on. And

I've highlighted that Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta are the three big tech companies that I think are the best buys today. When I look at Amazon, it makes sense that he wants to buy the company. Because again, Bill Ackman likes buying big blue chip companies with wide moats, very predictable growth, very cash generative core business models that are trading at artificially low PE ratios. When we look at this, we see

that Amazon's trading at a 26 forward PE. That's a little higher than Meta. But

Amazon is also a company that has enormous opportunity to expand margins. And investors are selling out of the company because it's doing a lot of capex, a very similar concern. And Bill Ackman here does not look concerned about the capex. He's buying into

concern. And Bill Ackman here does not look concerned about the capex. He's buying into both Meta and Amazon. They're both heavy capex companies. And I agree with the logic.

As I've said many times, this capex is deliberate. These companies are making these investments because they have customers lined up out of the door, going down the city block, they have so many customers that they can't fulfill upon them. The capex that I see in Amazon and Meta is similar to like Texas Roadhouse having such long lines that they can't fit all the customers, and then deciding to open up a

new location. Would you get bearish if a company has so many customers that they're

new location. Would you get bearish if a company has so many customers that they're having to open up more locations? Of course you wouldn't. But that's exactly the case with Amazon. They have contractual commitments, they have recurring revenue, customers spend more in

with Amazon. They have contractual commitments, they have recurring revenue, customers spend more in volume every single year. The CEO just recently had an interview, the leader of AWS specifically. And he said that this is very predictable. We have compute that is required

specifically. And he said that this is very predictable. We have compute that is required for our customers going forward for years. So for me, this is predictable revenue. Meta

is also their own customer. They have such big brands, so many users that they don't need external customers. They are their own customer for this compute, and they can use it with all of their applications. I like everything I see here with Bill Ackman. My only criticism would be that I think he sold Google a little early.

Ackman. My only criticism would be that I think he sold Google a little early.

When we look at the math here, we look at Amazon. Year to date, Amazon's down around 10%. So again, he was buying Amazon at the end of 2025. So

he already owned it going into this year. So he's down around 10 % on Amazon so far. Then if we look at Google, Google's held up a little bit better during this SaaSpocalypse. We look at Google, it's only down three and a half percent. So if he held on to Google, he'd be in a better position than

percent. So if he held on to Google, he'd be in a better position than selling out of Google and buying Amazon. But that's a little bit of splitting hairs.

That's being overly critical. He can't predict how these companies are going to trade in the short term. And these trades make sense. One thing that I'd note with his reduction on Google, as significant as it was, is when we look at the holdings, and we actually look at the Google position, it is still his third to fourth largest position. He still views it as a great opportunity, worthy of over 10 %

largest position. He still views it as a great opportunity, worthy of over 10 % of his portfolio. He just doesn't want it as 30%. He doesn't want it as that big of a position given the valuation. So it makes sense that he trimmed it down. In the very same quarter that Bill Ackman was buying Amazon to a

it down. In the very same quarter that Bill Ackman was buying Amazon to a huge extent, making a big holding his portfolio, we also have the Buffett team, Berkshire Hathaway doing the exact opposite. If we look at their trades and their 13F filing, we can look at the biggest trades and we have a reduction in Apple of 4%. They've been trimming their Apple as it's been going up. Reduction in Bank of

4%. They've been trimming their Apple as it's been going up. Reduction in Bank of America of around 8 .9%. And then we have them reducing a significant portion, the majority of their Amazon position by 77 .2%. Now it's a small amount, less than 1 % of the overall Berkshire public portfolio. So it's not like

a big change to their overall portfolio, but it is meaningful. This is a lot of Amazon that they sold last quarter at a higher price. Between these trades of the Bill Ackman team buying Amazon and the Buffett team selling it, I agree with the Ackman team. I think they got it right. And I disagree with Buffett. Now

I've done this before. I disagreed when he bought Paramount Plus, when he bought Ally Financial and many other cases. So I don't agree with everything that Berkshire does or everything that Bill Ackman does. But in this case, I think that the reason, if I had a guess of why Berkshire is selling it, is because of the expected CapEx growth. They like investing in companies that are producing free cash flow today. But

CapEx growth. They like investing in companies that are producing free cash flow today. But

when I look at Amazon, I think that misses the bigger picture. You are buying into the biggest cloud juggernaut in the world, a company that is growing incredibly fast at incredibly huge scale, the biggest retail business in the world online, a massively compounding ad business, and many other upside businesses as well. We recently had Walmart report their

earnings. And Walmart right now maintains a 43 forward PE ratio.

earnings. And Walmart right now maintains a 43 forward PE ratio.

Okay, so Walmart set a 43 forward PE. If we go over to Amazon and we look at the same data point, the same PE ratio, again, it's 26 .5.

So Walmart is around double the valuation of Amazon, give or take double.

When we look at the rate of growth, here's a chart that I made to illustrate this point. Let's zoom in a little bit here and I'll show you the chart. In blue, you have Walmart's revenue over time. In gold, you have Amazon's revenue

chart. In blue, you have Walmart's revenue over time. In gold, you have Amazon's revenue over time. Amazon started off to the point where you couldn't even see the revenue.

over time. Amazon started off to the point where you couldn't even see the revenue.

Like it really started growing in like 1996, 1997. And it was a sliver. Walmart

was already a big established scaled company at that point. And Walmart has continued to grow to its credit. It's been growing rather quickly, but not anywhere fast as Amazon, not anywhere close. Amazon is growing three to four times the speed. As of the end of 2025, Amazon is officially bigger than Walmart in total revenue. And it's growing

significantly faster. Yet Walmart trades at double the valuation. And that shows you how scared

significantly faster. Yet Walmart trades at double the valuation. And that shows you how scared investors are of AI, of the capex spend. What's going to happen to Amazon? They've

been told that they should be scared about companies like Amazon or Microsoft or Meta.

You should be worried about that. And AI is going to crush all these companies.

So put your money in Walmart. Well, I'm not I think that my money's better spent in companies like Amazon invested in these companies at lower valuations, growing faster with much better business models overall. So I'll keep my money there. Maybe it doesn't work out. But right now I feel good about it. Now, finally, we get to Valley

out. But right now I feel good about it. Now, finally, we get to Valley Forge Capital with Dev Cantasaria, one of my favorite investors, very similar to Chris Hohn.

When we look at their trades last quarter, the only one that's actually notable is a 15 % reduction with Intuit. Now, Intuit's a company that's in my portfolio as well. And it's one that I haven't been trimming. I've just been holding Intuit. In

well. And it's one that I haven't been trimming. I've just been holding Intuit. In

fact, the most recent thing I've done with this company is bought a little bit more. But Intuit's a company that's in the SaaSpocalypse. It's going down every single day.

more. But Intuit's a company that's in the SaaSpocalypse. It's going down every single day.

It's down again today by 2%. When we look at the year -to -date performance, it's now shaved off 40 % of its share price. It's just incredible to see this. 39 % reduction year -to -date. When we look at the price that he

this. 39 % reduction year -to -date. When we look at the price that he was trimming Intuit, this is also important to keep in mind. Remember that Dev Cantasaria was not selling Intuit at today's price. He was selling it throughout 2024 and 2025.

My guess is that he's not trimming it at today's prices. I'd be surprised if Dev Cantasaria is selling the stock at 380. If anything, he might be adding to the position at this point. If he is selling Intuit when it's trading at a 15 Ford PE ratio, I'd be very surprised. Now, it's interesting to see these investors' portfolios. But again, what I think is even more interesting is seeing when they were

portfolios. But again, what I think is even more interesting is seeing when they were buying these companies and the price changes since. For example, if we look at the top most bought stocks by super investors across the board, this is the list, the top 10. We can look at them and then compare the recent price change. So

top 10. We can look at them and then compare the recent price change. So

this is from the end of 2025. The top bought stock was Microsoft. At least

that was the most frequently bought, even though it was a small percentage point. But

when we look at it, 16 super investors added to Microsoft as of Q4 in 2025. When we look at that, the price has dropped 17%. So any buy you're

2025. When we look at that, the price has dropped 17%. So any buy you're doing today of Microsoft is much cheaper than where these super investors were just recently adding to their positions. We have an even more significant one here. Amazon was bought by only 11 super investors, but to a greater degree, 0 .4 % of overall.

And we have this as down 11 .3 % from the end of 2025. We

also have notably what I've highlighted before in the Chris Hohn TCI investment fund. He

recently added to S &P Global and S &P Global is down 19 % from those buys. So my best guess is that many of these super investors are going

those buys. So my best guess is that many of these super investors are going to be using this time period today as a buying opportunity. They'll increase their positions in Amazon, in S &P Global, in Moody's, in many of these great companies that are being sold off today for what they will consider to be short -term concerns.

The concerns for these companies are AI automation tools and agentic technology from plugins like Claude plugins. And that has caused S &P Global to be crushed and Moody's to

Claude plugins. And that has caused S &P Global to be crushed and Moody's to go down as well. And these concerns were addressed in spectacular fashion in Moody's most recent earnings call. I'll play you one clip of the earnings call. This is one question being answered by the CEO of the company. And this gives you an idea of what they did to address these concerns. You know, I would say a few

things in terms of that, you know, make it very hard to replicate that I do not think are understood. First of all, a lot of the data just simply isn't available to the public. We have, you know, a complex ecosystem of commercial agreements and IP rights. I mean, that has taken us decades to build

and we're constantly curating that. Second, you know, there's legal and regulatory issues, you know, privacy laws and export controls and all sorts of things that our customers need to know that we're abiding by, right, if they're going to use the data. There's semantic complexity. This gets into, you know, things in different jurisdictions

data. There's semantic complexity. This gets into, you know, things in different jurisdictions mean different things. And models have a lot of challenges with semantic drift.

So that's where we've been curating all this and our local experts over decades understand what different things mean in different locations. And then they're cleansing and normalizing that data to make it valuable. There's entity resolution and ownership inference. And by the way, you know, the models are not simply doing entity resolution. That is a really important thing

to be able to resolve against the right entity. And we've combined probabilistic models, a human in a loop validation and proprietary logic. And we've been doing this over years and years and years. And then we've got all this historical depth, right? So we

have a lot of historical depth. And in some cases, the data has either been archived or it doesn't exist in digital forms. It's not easy to get some of that history. And then finally, governance. And I got to tell you, Craig, you know,

that history. And then finally, governance. And I got to tell you, Craig, you know, every bank I talk to tells me good enough is not good enough for our institution. What they want from us, they want to move in many cases to fewer

institution. What they want from us, they want to move in many cases to fewer trusted providers. So they want us to be able to meet their needs.

trusted providers. So they want us to be able to meet their needs.

I've listened to many earnings calls where CEOs try to defend their moat and their explanation of their company's value proposition in the face of AI and agentic technology. And

in most cases, the CEOs are fumbling the question. They're not answering it in a convincing way. They're saying that AI will just grow the opportunity, but they don't have

convincing way. They're saying that AI will just grow the opportunity, but they don't have really specifics of why they are insulated, why they have a wide moat from AI.

And Moody's just did. They explained that they have a significant moat. And this was by far the single best explanation. If we really break down what they said, here's a summary of what the CEO's argument is. Moody's is unifying data, models, ratings, research, and risk assessment into a single normalized entity record to power a knowledge graph. So

they're putting everything that their company has into this knowledge graph. On top of that, this sits as a trusted context layer between the raw data and the AI reasoning engines. The on -coding is what does the data mean and how does it relate

engines. The on -coding is what does the data mean and how does it relate across entities, time, and scenarios? When and why the data should be applied? The context

layer and knowledge graph enables agents to access comprehensive, interconnected views of entities and generate decision -grade outputs. Accurate, explainable, and defensible. When a chatbot spits something out, it's hardly the case where that's a decision -grade output. If you put in a stock and you say, is that a good investment? You're going to get an answer. It's going to be opinionated. The chatbot will have some reasoning behind it, but

answer. It's going to be opinionated. The chatbot will have some reasoning behind it, but it will change on a whim. You can minorly tweak the question just slightly, and then it will say it's a bad investment. Chatbots are not decision -grade outputs, especially for institutions making decisions on their business and the future of their business. Moody's

does give you decision -grade outputs, and that's because they're layering all of this context together. The management argues that these characteristics, proprietary sources, IP rights, semantic

together. The management argues that these characteristics, proprietary sources, IP rights, semantic expertise, historical depth, and governance make their data a solution difficult to replicate even by AI -native competitors. It's a very convincing argument, and so far we don't even see AI in any of the numbers. That's another point to stress again. These companies are

growing like they have throughout history. Even with these additional tools, their clients are still signing up for more products, and in most cases they're growing their agreements with Moody's.

I will be buying additional shares of Moody's and S &P Global throughout this week.

Now a few other mentions, we have Booking Holdings that just recently reported its earnings.

The stock is now down 7 % after the earnings, which is interesting because when we look at the summary of the report here, we have it on Qualtrum. It

says, Booking reported Q4 2025. The revenue grew by 16%, which is fast revenue growth. Gap net income is up 34%. EBITDA is up 19%. They have expanding

revenue growth. Gap net income is up 34%. EBITDA is up 19%. They have expanding margins. Management guided to low double -digit constant currency revenue growth. Now that is the

margins. Management guided to low double -digit constant currency revenue growth. Now that is the problem. So out of everything that's going good with the company, this is overall a

problem. So out of everything that's going good with the company, this is overall a very, really impressive report. The problem is the guidance is a little slow on the revenue side. I don't think that this is too bad of a thing. I'm not

revenue side. I don't think that this is too bad of a thing. I'm not

too concerned about Booking. Booking Holdings remains a great company. I still remain bullish on it, even though I don't own it, and I think this was a decent report.

DoorDash is another company that no matter how many times people complain about the product or say how fat and lazy people are that use it, the stock is incredible.

And it's one that I've acknowledged as an incredible stock for some time. When we

look at DoorDash, we just see a company that people are addicted to. And this

goes along with human behavior. We all want things in life to be convenient and easy. And above everything else, I really think that we value convenience. And DoorDash just

easy. And above everything else, I really think that we value convenience. And DoorDash just resembles convenience. The whole product is convenience. Being able to open up an app, click

resembles convenience. The whole product is convenience. Being able to open up an app, click a button and have food arrive at your doorstep is the ultimate convenience. When we

look at the amount of revenue, it climbed by 37 % year over year. But

more impressive than that, when we look at the amount of orders, DoorDash's orders went up by 32 % year over year, from $776 million in a single quarter to $903 million. An incredible jump. This is a massive jump in orders. So we have lots more people using DoorDash. It doesn't matter

what the markup is or what the fees look like or how bad of a deal it is. DoorDash grows because it's convenience and that trumps everything else. Now, finally,

we get to the fail of the week. In this case, we have an investor summit, an AI summit in India with notable AI leaders like Sam Altman, Dario Amadeus, Sundar Pachai, many other people there on stage. And we have all these people, all these notable AI leaders in the field lined up on stage. And again, these are the ones pushing the limits. They're on the frontier of this technology. So even

though they're fierce business rivals, they're competing against each other. OpenAI competes against Gemini, right? Sam Altman with OpenAI competes against Dario, which is anthropic. They compete fiercely and

right? Sam Altman with OpenAI competes against Dario, which is anthropic. They compete fiercely and they don't like each other in person. They don't like each other similar to how Sam Altman feels about Elon Musk. They really don't like each other. In fact, Dario recently ran ads with Anthropic, if you remember, that said ads are coming to AI,

but not Claude. And it portrayed ChatGPT in a super weird, creepy way. Those were

the ads that this guy ran against Sam Altman. So they're put on stage here next to each other. And this is where hilarity ensues because of how awkward these two individuals are. Let's go ahead and just take a look at what happens here.

So we have them all holding hands. Again, they're going to do like a hand -holding thing where they put their hands up, kind of a hoorah, as even though they're competitors, they're all in this together. They're committed to responsible AI leadership. And we have Sundar Pichai there. He's smiling. He's having a great time. He

leadership. And we have Sundar Pichai there. He's smiling. He's having a great time. He

feels fine. Then we have Sam Altman. Check out Sam Altman here. He's looking real concerned. He has his right hand up. He doesn't know what to do with the

concerned. He has his right hand up. He doesn't know what to do with the left hand. And he has Dario right there off to the left of him. And

left hand. And he has Dario right there off to the left of him. And

this is how it goes.

They just put their hands up without holding them. They refuse to hold each other's hands. They refuse to touch each other. Again, every single other person on stage is

hands. They refuse to touch each other. Again, every single other person on stage is holding each other's hands. Doesn't mean anything. Everybody's doing it, except for Sam and Dario.

Look at how they look. They have their hands up next to each other like they're going to do a hoorah. You know, they're going to chair for something. And

then Dario, if you, if we get a zoom on Dario's face here, he looks utterly defeated. Sam looks incredibly awkward. Both of them look ridiculous and awkward because

utterly defeated. Sam looks incredibly awkward. Both of them look ridiculous and awkward because neither of them are willing to swallow their pride for 30 seconds and hold hands.

The awkwardness continued on in that same event with Dario reading, reading his speech from an iPhone. While there's hundreds of people in the audience, he's just pacing back and

an iPhone. While there's hundreds of people in the audience, he's just pacing back and forth looking at his phone. This is, uh, he's losing aura as the kids say.

This is a major aura loss, like a level 10 aura loss here. Uh, it

doesn't look good. In this case, we have a two for one. Both Dario and Sam Altman are the fail of the week in this episode. Hope you enjoyed seeing the next one.