AI Startups vs. Silicon Valley Giants: Navigating the Tech Titans’ Talent Hunt Amid Regulatory Crackdowns

To go back to this article, head to My Profile and then click on View saved stories.

Venturing into AI Start-up Territory? Brace Yourself

Embarking on the journey of establishing an AI startup in today's climate is nothing short of an adventure. For starters, the cost of maintaining servers is sky-high. Moreover, the competition for securing top talent is fierce, leading to exorbitant salaries. Even if you manage to secure investment, assemble a team, launch your product, and make some progress in an already saturated market, the threat posed by the tech giants cannot be ignored. The voracious giants of the tech world—Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta—are always on the lookout, ready to snatch away your most valuable assets: your talented team and your proprietary innovations.

However, they are no longer able to simply purchase you. The days of direct takeovers are over as such actions could trigger scrutiny from regulatory bodies in both the US and Europe, where there's an increasing focus on antitrust measures. Nowadays, rather than absorbing you whole, a major technology firm might opt to license your technology and integrate your key personnel into their team for joint projects. This strategy—neither a full acquisition nor merely hiring, but rather a blend of acqui-hiring and forming partnerships—has been observed on several occasions lately, and it's likely to become more common.

This week, we're excited to have Paresh Dave, a senior writer at WIRED, rejoin us on the program to delve into the latest wave of collaborations between burgeoning AI firms and major technology players. Additionally, we'll explore the intensified scrutiny regulators are imposing on Google specifically.

Episode Summary

Discover insights into the American legal decision that determined Google utilized monopolistic methods to enhance its search engine's superiority. Explore further into Character AI, Meta, and personalized chatbots. Dive into all of WIRED's coverage on antitrust matters.

Suggestions

Paresh suggests engaging in gaming on Netflix, particularly Triviaverse. Mike suggests checking out the latest documentary titled Mountain Queen: The Summits of Lhakpa Sherpa, available on Netflix as well. Lauren recommends reading “Inside the Secret Negotiations to Free Evan Gershkovich” published by The Wall Street Journal.

You can follow Paresh Dave on social media under the handle @peard33. Lauren Goode goes by @LaurenGoode, and Michael Calore can be found at @snackfight. Reach out to the primary contact at @GadgetLab. Boone Ashworth (@booneashworth) is responsible for producing the show. The theme tune is the work of Solar Keys.

Listening Guide

To tune into this week’s podcast episode, you can utilize the audio player available on this site. However, for those looking to automatically receive each episode, here’s the method to subscribe at no cost:

If you're using an iPhone or iPad, launch the Podcasts app or simply click on this hyperlink. Alternatively, you might want to consider downloading applications such as Overcast or Pocket Casts and look for Gadget Lab. We're also available on Spotify. Additionally, if necessary, here is the RSS feed link.

Transcript Note: Please be aware this is a machine-generated transcript and may include inaccuracies.

Lauren Goode: Mike

Michael Calore: Lauren.

Lauren Goode: Imagine if we at WIRED were interested in purchasing an AI firm, but were prevented from doing so by powers beyond our control. This would be due to the perception that WIRED possesses too much influence, making such a move seen as providing an unjust benefit.

Michael Calore: I don't see that occurring, as I have no interest in purchasing an AI business.

Lauren Goode: Alright. However, imagine you were interested in buying a company because it stood out to you as truly distinct, but your attempt to buy it was going to be rejected. How would you handle that situation?

Michael Calore: So, in that scenario, my approach would likely be to simply poach all their top talent and bring them on board here, correct? Would that be the appropriate response?

Lauren Goode: Absolutely, that's the right response. Indeed.

Michael Calore: Alright, I presume there's a whole lot of business maneuvering required to achieve that. However, if there's any entity capable of pioneering new approaches in this area, it's likely the major tech firms.

Lauren Goode: You've succeeded twice in a row.

Michael Calore: Okay. Let's settle on three. Is this the topic for this week's podcast discussion?

Lauren Goode: Let's get started.

Michael Calore: Okay.

[Intro music for Gadget Lab starts playing]

Lauren Goode: Hello, everyone. Thanks for joining us at Gadget Lab. My name is Lauren Goode, and I'm a lead writer here at WIRED.

Michael Calore: And my name is Michael Calore. I oversee Consumer Tech and Culture here at WIRED.

Lauren Goode: This week, we have the pleasure of welcoming WIRED's senior writer, Paresh Dave, to the show. Paresh, we're truly grateful for your presence. And by presence, I'm referring to the short journey each of us made from our desks to the studio, just three feet away.

Paresh Dave: I'm relieved that joining your show through an acqui-hire didn't result in any lawsuits against me.

Lauren Goode: It's a pleasure to have you here. Just a few days back, in a move that caught many by surprise, Google announced its plans to shell out $2.5 billion to venture capitalists who had put their money into a startup known as Character.AI. The essence of this deal is for Google to effectively reacquire the expertise of the startup's team. Character.AI's creators, Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas, are former Google employees, and this agreement signals their return to the company.

The agreement grants Google a non-exclusive right to use Character.AI's AI technology, signaling a strategic move. While not a full acquisition, this arrangement resembles a hybrid of talent acquisition and tech collaboration. This type of deal isn't new, as we've observed similar actions in recent times. Later in the program, we'll delve into the increasing scrutiny regulators are placing on Google. But initially, Paresh, let's explore this emerging pattern of AI startup acquisitions.

Paresh Dave: It seems to be a growing trend or perhaps a mimicry strategy among tech giants. Microsoft kicked things off, not exactly through an acquisition, but by essentially getting involved with Inflection AI. Following suit, Amazon partnered with Adept AI, and now Google has joined the fray with Character.AI. Interestingly, these startups all share a common thread – they were co-founded by ex-Google employees – and are all vying to rival OpenAI by creating their own versions of something akin to ChatGPT. Specifically, Character.AI aims to develop chatbots that can emulate anyone from historical figures like Socrates to contemporary personalities like Elon Musk, and even anime characters. Achieving this requires significant investment to build the advanced language models these chatbots rely on. But there's a finite pool of investment capital available, Lauren.

Lauren Goode: Apologies. You were quite sincere in your statement. It's actually me who's trying to escalate the conversation at the moment. I could also create an AI chatbot character if that's something you'd be interested in. I believe so. Alright. These emerging companies have been crafting their proprietary tech, yet it's costly to maintain. So, what's their most pivotal asset? What renders them appealing prospects?

Paresh Dave highlighted the intelligence of the individuals involved, notably mentioning Noam Shazeer, a cofounder of Character, who played a crucial role in creating Google's spell-check feature, advertisement technology, and the foundational technologies for ChatGPT. Dave believes the brilliance of the team is a significant factor. Regarding the company's technological direction, he pointed out that Character plans to shift away from its proprietary technology towards utilizing open-source solutions or licensing from third parties in its future endeavors.

This indicates to us quite clearly. The sheer cost of constructing and further enhancing these systems has reached a point where some entities are starting to withdraw from the endeavor. Thus, when the question arises, "Is there an AI bubble?" it's essential to refine the query somewhat. It appears we could be witnessing a bubble specifically concerning startups focused on large language models. The financial barriers to developing these particular large language models have become so daunting that a number of firms attempting this have decided to abandon these initiatives.

Michael Calore: So, what makes it so expensive? Is it solely the expertise required, or does it also involve the computing power needed, or is it a combination of factors?

Paresh Dave emphasizes the necessity of significant computational power to crawl the entire web, a process that raises legal questions. This involves gathering vast amounts of data, analyzing it to understand the connections between various terms, and enabling AI to accurately predict subsequent words in sequences. The substantial investment, running into billions of dollars, required for training these models is critical for companies aiming for long-term success. Given that Google and Microsoft are already offering capable cloud solutions, and Meta along with others are making open-source technologies available for public use, Dave questions the need for yet another player in this crowded space.

Lauren Goode: Exactly. So, in certain situations, these emerging companies are securing funding in the range of several tens to hundreds of millions from venture capitalists. And unless they're experiencing a decrease in their valuation, their worth in the private sector tends to skyrocket. Consequently, they might be perceived as having a valuation exceeding a billion dollars by the wider technology community. This implies that when large corporations such as Microsoft or Google consider acquiring these startups, they face close examination. What's the reason behind this?

Paresh Dave: Precisely. Regulatory bodies have informed these corporations, and we'll delve deeper into this topic later, that they intend to keep a close eye on mergers and acquisitions involving artificial intelligence. This domain represents the future direction of technology. Regulators aim to prevent a scenario where, five years down the line, they regret not intervening to halt certain transactions or prevent companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon from gaining excessive influence.

Consequently, Microsoft has found itself in an odd position where it has chosen to allow Inflection AI to continue its operations while simultaneously absorbing a significant portion of its most critical assets. However, it's crucial to acknowledge that despite the prevalence of imitation in the industry, there are still unique players in the field. For example, there's a French startup named Mistral, a Japanese startup called Sakana, and Cohere in the United States, all of which were founded by ex-Googlers or at least one co-founder from Google. These companies are actively developing their own versions of Large Language Models (LLMs). Therefore, the landscape isn't entirely barren, although there is a growing recognition that perhaps the emphasis should be on product development rather than the underlying technology itself.

Michael Calore: Major corporations still have opportunities to seize.

Paresh Dave: Viewing it from a different perspective, could Apple be considering the acquisition of any of these firms as they venture into enhancing Siri and other products through Apple Intelligence? Indeed. The list of major tech corporations potentially on the acquisition radar is extensive, with numerous other candidates that might be targeted.

Lauren Goode: Recall that era when Apple was constantly acquiring numerous companies, and they had to report these purchases in their quarterly financial statements? They would repeat the exact same phrase each time. These were minor acquisitions, with Apple typically spending around $30 million on each, snapping up various firms left and right.

Michael Calore: Indeed. What's fascinating is that this has been a significant trend, especially with Apple. They have a history of acquiring features. This seems to be a common strategy among major tech firms. For instance, when Apple realized the necessity of integrating a voice assistant, it acquired Siri. Similarly, for reasons best known to them, they decided to incorporate a social network into iTunes, leading to the acquisition of a social network platform.

Lauren Goode: Was that Ping?

Michael Calore confirmed, "Indeed, it was Ping."

Lauren Goode: A Look Back.

Michael Calore mentioned that the company aimed to revamp its weather application, leading to the acquisition of Dark Sky. He pointed out that this trend of purchasing specific functionalities appears to be evolving. Now, large technology firms are not only acquiring the essential skills but also securing exclusive rights to utilize prominent features, without necessarily absorbing the entire company.

Paresh Dave: Absolutely. I'd describe it as the imitative behavior. It's like, "Grab this feature," and then the subsequent company sees it and thinks, "We have to incorporate that too." So, it wouldn't shock me if Apple decides to join in on this trend. Another point worth mentioning is whether we're seeing a bubble burst, with everything gravitating towards big tech. It's important to recognize that these transactions also indicate that the adoption of generative AI is expected to proceed at a gradual pace.

Last week, Bloomberg published an intriguing article focusing on Google's initiatives to integrate generative AI within the healthcare sector. The piece highlighted two significant instances where the AI system failed to capture crucial information: one instance involved overlooked details in a communication note between nurses, and the other involved the system's inability to accurately summarize a critical statement made by a patient.

I believe it highlights our collective experiences thus far. The issue is that these platforms often present us with inaccurate data, proving to be unreliable. As a result, Google has adopted a strategy focused on the future, concentrating on attracting skilled individuals and continuing its research efforts. Meanwhile, startups remain focused on quickly developing their products and capitalizing on immediate financial opportunities.

Lauren Goode: I'm curious, the founders or co-founders of these startups must be benefiting significantly from these agreements. You mentioned that quite a few of them have a history with Google. Considering this, what's the impact on the approximately 100 regular employees who joined the startup, possibly with aspirations of a financial windfall, and are now finding themselves integrated into a larger entity or dispersing in different directions? What's the process like for them?

Michael Calore: Moreover, they were under the impression that they would be involved in developing some revolutionary technology, an opportunity they no longer have.

Lauren Goode: While they previously had their reservations about Microsoft, they are now employed by the company.

Paresh Dave noted a few points of interest. Firstly, regarding the founders and senior leaders who initially aimed to conduct research, there's a noticeable sense of irony or humor in the situation. Many of these individuals previously expressed skepticism towards Google and big tech as a whole, which motivated them to establish their own startups. Ironically, they find themselves back within the fold of large tech corporations. On the other hand, for those remaining with the smaller remnants of companies like Inflection and Character.AI, the situation appears quite peculiar. Nevertheless, it's conceivable that these individuals may be more inclined towards commercial endeavors, focusing on revenue generation and product development over research. This might suit their goals better.

Lauren Goode expressed a sentiment familiar to many in their professional journey, saying, "There comes a time when you no longer wish to be consumed by your work or have it be the central aspect of your identity. You simply desire a steady income."

Paresh Dave: As these startups experience a loss of research and LLM expertise, it's likely that there will be a reduction in their overall valuation, which could lead to a decrease in salaries or total compensation for their employees.

Lauren Goode: Alright. Paresh, I really appreciate your input. We'll pause briefly and return to discuss further on the regulatory landscape and its specific impact on Google.

Please provide the text

Lauren Goode: In the United States, regulatory bodies are currently in the spotlight, especially with their increased focus on the tech industry's giants. The Justice Department's Antitrust Division has been closely examining the operations of major technology firms for the last few years. Both Google and Apple have faced legal challenges initiated by the DOJ. Simultaneously, the Federal Trade Commission has launched legal actions against Facebook and Amazon. These legal battles mean that these tech behemoths are embroiled in lengthy legal disputes with government agencies, hindering their ability to pursue significant mergers and acquisitions. The goal is to create a more equitable competitive environment, taking into account the immense influence these tech giants hold. However, this regulatory scrutiny has a domino effect on the startup ecosystem, which is understandably causing concern among those involved in it. Paresh, could you share some insights into how Google has been specifically impacted by these developments recently, and what might be on the horizon?

Paresh Dave: This week's headline is the US Department of Justice's victory over Google in court. The federal government accused Google of unlawfully monopolizing the search engine market and its search advertising sector. Though Google managed a few minor victories within the case, the verdict was largely in favor of the Department of Justice, as decided by a federal judge in Washington DC. The forthcoming months will reveal the penalties Google will endure due to this outcome.

Google is challenging the court's decision, which means it could take a significant amount of time before the company is required to adhere to any directives. This period will start to reveal whether Google will need to divest parts of its business or implement major modifications to how phones are set up, allowing users the option to select alternative default search engines on Android devices or within the Chrome browser. This situation unfolds against a backdrop of increasing scrutiny from the U.S. government over the past few years, indicating a growing intolerance for tech giants expanding their dominion in ways that unlawfully stifle competition.

Lauren Goode: In your recent article on WIRED.com, you discussed Google's current standing with two major antitrust lawsuits, stating they haven't succeeded in either. Could you briefly explain what sets these two lawsuits apart?

Paresh Dave: Indeed. Additionally, it was defeated in a court decision last December due to a legal challenge initiated by Epic Games, the creators of Fortnite, who claimed that Google's Play Store constituted an unlawful monopoly. Consequently, this month marks the beginning of discussions before a judge regarding the potential sanctions.

Michael Calore: Could you provide insights into the main figures within the US government who are significantly advancing antitrust regulation efforts?

Paresh Dave reports that there is a consensus on their core objectives. Lina Khan, the FTC Chair, expressed in a discussion with a publication from Harvard Law School in February, "The realm of AI is rapidly evolving. Hence, our primary focus is to ensure that we maintain a competitive landscape and the possibility for innovation, instead of allowing the current leading companies to further entrench their market power." Similarly, Jonathan Kanter, who leads the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice and initiated the lawsuit against Google, made his stance clear during a May conference at Stanford, which Dave was present at, stating, "Should any entities within the AI sector breach antitrust regulations, the Antitrust Division will actively respond."

Consequently, they have been actively engaging in legal actions or conducting probes into major tech mergers. This led to the termination of the Adobe Figma transaction. The Microsoft Activision merger faced close examination but ultimately proceeded. In the most recent event, Google's attempt to acquire the cybersecurity firm Wiz fell through. It appeared that Wiz feared the acquisition would be ensnared in regulatory investigations, much like the Figma transaction, preventing its completion and resulting in a loss of one to two years navigating through legal turmoil.

Lauren Goode: NVIDIA also failed in its attempt to acquire Arm.

Paresh Dave: Here's another instance. Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter are also supported by the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, India, and several other regions where antitrust authorities share concerns about the excessive expansion of big tech companies in manners they believe could be illegal.

Michael Calore: Could you explain how this atmosphere affects the transactions we discussed earlier in the show, where major technology firms are engaging in these types of talent acquisitions and licensing agreements with AI enterprises?

Paresh Dave: Essentially, when a company makes a purchase, it usually needs to disclose it, especially if it crosses specific benchmarks, requiring government notification. However, by arranging these agreements as licensing transactions or talent acquisitions, rather than conventional purchases, they circumvent the need for disclosure. This approach appears to be their standard operating procedure.

Is it possible to achieve our objectives without adhering to the standard regulatory framework? It appears that the FTC has already begun scrutinizing investments made by major tech firms in certain enterprises. One could speculate that this probe will extend to examining the legitimacy of agreements made by companies like Microsoft with Inflection, Amazon with Adept, and Google with Character. Consequently, this might not signify the conclusion of discussions surrounding these transactions. Further examination could be on the horizon as part of the FTC's ongoing investigation. Should the FTC decide to challenge these agreements directly, initiating a new investigation would be necessary. However, this remains a feasible option. The FTC, under Khan's leadership, has demonstrated a readiness to retrospectively investigate mergers and acquisitions from the past with the intention of potentially reversing them, essentially pressing the undo button.

Lauren Goode: Wow. Alright. That's fascinating. Some investors, specifically two that come to mind, have openly expressed their belief that these regulatory bodies are overly aggressive towards the overall tech sector, arguing they favor smaller tech entities.

Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, the driving forces behind the renowned venture capital company Andreessen Horowitz, are significant figures in the tech world. Marc, known for his tendency to block many on Twitter, continues to make an impact with his writings. His manifestos periodically emerge, becoming ingrained in Silicon Valley's mindset, influencing the vernacular and concepts embraced by the tech community. A notable stance they've recently advocated is their support for smaller technology companies. They argue that the challenges faced by these smaller entities, which are crucial for innovation and job creation, are detrimental to the broader tech ecosystem. This perspective suggests that the inability of large tech firms to acquire startups poses a problem. However, the reality surrounding startups and their interaction with big tech is more complex. Let's delve into the broader dialogue within the startup sphere concerning this issue.

Paresh Dave elaborates that the situation is somewhat complex, yet fundamentally, startups often consider their ultimate achievements to include either making an initial public offering (IPO) to transform their equity into tangible money or being acquired by a major technology firm. If these options become unavailable, it poses a significant challenge for startups and their investors in liquidating their shares into cash.

This is what's unfolding, and it's quite intriguing because we see Marc Andreessen representing one political viewpoint, while Reid Hoffman, a cofounder of LinkedIn and also an investor, holds a stance at the opposite end of the political spectrum. Despite their differing political beliefs, they seem to unite on certain issues. For instance, Reid Hoffman recently made a television appearance where he expressed his desire for Lina Khan to be removed from her position as chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Similarly, prominent investor Barry Diller referred to Lina Khan as inept. Although both later expressed regret for the language they used, they continued to voice their disapproval of the FTC's actions, which they characterize as an aggressive campaign against major technology companies.

Michael Calore: The battle is nowhere near its end as the upcoming presidential election in the US, occurring in a few short months, will play a pivotal role in shaping future regulations. Both Kanter and Kahn were appointed by Biden, and should Donald Trump secure another term, it's likely he'll either dismiss or substitute them.

Paresh Dave highlights an intriguing contrast where JD Vance, who is running for vice president with Donald Trump, has shown strong support for Lina Khan and her actions. Donald Trump himself has somewhat backed the close examination of major tech firms, mainly due to his worries over what he perceives as the suppression of conservative voices by these companies. He has also been a proponent of investigations conducted by the FTC and other federal bodies into these tech giants. On the other hand, Reid Hoffman's critique of Lina Khan included a suggestion that Kamala Harris, should she win the election, should dismiss Khan. This introduces a concern that the ongoing regulatory oversight might diminish should Kamala Harris assume office.

Lauren Goode: Incredible. Is this also being directed at Kanter, or is it just me noticing a significant amount of attention on Lina Khan? I can't help but sense some misogyny in the air.

Paresh Dave: No, that does play a role. However, from what I've observed, there haven't been outright demands for Jonathan Kanter's dismissal. Moreover, he tends to maintain a lower profile, and there are numerous other issues Trump has with the Justice Department that likely occupy more of his focus and are unrelated to this.

Lauren Goode: Paresh, regarding antitrust issues within major technology companies, what are the upcoming developments we should keep an eye on?

Paresh Dave reports that the Department of Justice's legal challenges against Google are far from over. There's an upcoming trial focused on Google's advertising technology sector, scheduled to begin next month in a federal court located in Alexandria, Virginia. This trial holds significant implications due to the substantial revenue Google garners from its ad tech operations, which are central to its profitability and overall business structure. Should the court mandate a breakup of this segment of Google's operations, it could fundamentally alter the company's current form.

Lauren Goode: Certainly, we'll delve into that topic in the upcoming weeks. Appreciate it once more. Let's pause for another break, and afterward, we'll return with our suggestions.

It appears there was

Lauren Goode: Paresh, apart from advising against purchasing an AI business at the moment, what else would you recommend?

Paresh Dave suggests trying out the gaming options available on Netflix.

Michael Calore: Assertive.

Paresh Dave: Up until now, I hadn't explored the gaming feature within the Netflix app, however, during a visit from my nephew, he expressed a desire to try out Triviaverse, a surprisingly challenging game. I was stumped by a good number of the questions. It baffles me how he managed to know so much, yet it was an intriguing change of pace to engage in gaming on Netflix instead of indulging in cheesy romantic comedies.

The requirement to download additional content can be somewhat frustrating, as one might hope for these features to be directly integrated into the platform. However, incorporating them directly might result in an excessively large application. Despite this, there has been notable recent progress. Netflix reported a threefold increase in gaming activity, starting from a modest initial level. Among the hits, Grand Theft Auto stands out as particularly successful on Netflix. Additionally, a game adapted from the television series "Too Hot to Handle," which I have not seen, seems to have garnered significant popularity. Netflix boasts a portfolio of over a hundred games, with between 60 to 80 currently in development. The platform's gaming segment is evidently expanding. It raises the question of whether Netflix will venture into real-money gaming, potentially revolutionizing the concept of 'Netflix and chill' by allowing viewers to earn money.

Lauren Goode: Enjoying Netflix? Are you sticking with the usual remote for that?

Paresh Dave: Many of these are designed for mobile devices, meaning you can engage with them on your smartphone.

Lauren Goode: Using your phone for gaming, I see. Have you projected it onto your larger television screen?

Paresh Dave mentioned, "I believe it's possible, though this occurred when we were at the airport. From what I gather, it seems that most individuals are simply engaged with their mobile devices."

Lauren Goode: Understood.

Paresh Dave: Astonishing.

Lauren Goode: Interesting. Have you had a chance to try those out, Mike?

Paresh Dave: Certainly not.

Lauren Goode: Likewise. There was a phase when individuals attempted to popularize that concept on your television.

Paresh Dave: Indeed.

Lauren Goode: In my opinion, the process of using the remote was overly complicated. Amazon was guilty of this as well.

Paresh Dave mentions that the current discussions revolve around television projects. However, from his perspective, the primary emphasis at the moment is on mobile platforms.

Lauren Goode: Awesome.

Michael Calore: The challenge lies in integrating the phone as a controller, a strategy that proves ineffective as it requires users to divert their gaze to the phone, thereby distracting them from the screen.

Lauren Goode: Absolutely.

Michael Calore: Thus, it's somewhat too complex for the average person's intellect to manage.

Lauren Goode: Appreciate it. Also, it's included with your Netflix subscription.

Paresh Dave: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Lauren Goode: Understood.

Paresh Dave: To my understanding, there are no additional charges for any of the games.

Michael Calore: Not yet.

Lauren Goode: Okay then.

Paresh Dave emphasized the significance of the matter.

Lauren Goode: I appreciate your input. Mike, what would you suggest?

Michael Calore suggests checking out an engaging narrative on Netflix that steers clear of being a game or a clichéd romantic comedy. Instead, it's an impressive documentary titled Mountain Queen: The Summits of Lhakpa Sherpa, exclusively available on Netflix. This documentary focuses on a female climber who has successfully reached the summit of Everest on ten occasions, setting a record for women climbers on this iconic mountain.

A woman from Nepal, who is raising her daughters alone, has faced significant challenges throughout her life. Lacking the opportunity for education in her early years and trapped in a harmful marriage, she has remarkably turned her life around. Now, she finds solace and a sense of achievement in mountain climbing. Her journey is not just visually stunning due to the breathtaking landscapes but also deeply inspiring. Her story captures the heart, encouraging a level of support and enthusiasm seldom felt in climbing documentaries. It's important to acknowledge Wendi Jonassen's connection to this narrative, as she is well-known among us for her previous contributions to WIRED and her extensive work as a video producer at Condé Nast.

Lauren Goode: Additionally part of our informal yet enjoyable running group.

Michael Calore: Absolutely. Every month, we take a jog around the lake accompanied by Wendi, who serves as an associate producer in this project.

Lauren Goode: Quite impressive.

Michael Calore: Indeed, kudos to Wendi. Moreover, you don't just have to rely on my suggestion alone. The film presently boasts a perfect score of 100 on the Tomatometer.

Lauren Goode: Oh, impressive.

Michael Calore: Indeed. I believe they describe it as receiving widespread acclaim.

Lauren Goode: That's really impressive.

Michael Calore: Absolutely. Watching Mountain Queen on Netflix.

Lauren Goode: Regarding Netflix. Okay. Seems like today is all about Netflix.

Michael Calore: Truly it is. Lauren, what do you suggest we watch on Netflix?

Lauren Goode: What I suggest isn't a film you'd find on Netflix, though it's easy to picture it turning into one-

Paresh Dave: Unsatisfactory.

Lauren Goode: … amalgamated into a singular event, eventually. My suggestion is to delve into this remarkable narrative featured in The Wall Street Journal, titled Behind the Covert Discussions to Release Evan Gershkovich. Evan, as many know, is the journalist from The Wall Street Journal who was mistakenly detained in a Russian prison. His release occurred last week, amid an intricate and extensive exchange of prisoners. The narrative is filled with intrigue, encompassing not just Evan, but also a US Marine, Vladimir Putin, Russian tycoons, Brittney Griner, Eric Schmidt, Tucker Carlson-

Michael Calore: Excuse me?

Lauren Goode: … In an impressive display of dedication, Jake Sullivan, an investigative journalist from Bulgaria, alongside the CAA, the FBI, and a mother whose support you'd deeply wish for in times of incarceration—referred to as Mom Ella—came to be recognized as Ella. Her meticulous efforts throughout this endeavor were truly remarkable. She played a crucial role backstage in securing the release of her son, Evan. It's a phenomenal story. Undoubtedly, we're all relieved and pleased to hear that Evan has been freed from jail.

Michael Calore is curious about how the Journal managed to secure an exclusive on the story.

Lauren Goode: Really?

Paresh Dave: The information wasn't exactly proprietary.

Michael Calore: Indeed, that's correct.

Paresh Dave: There were comparable accounts from others. This particular narrative was the most extended.

Lauren Goode: However, it seems the Journal had exclusive insight into the situation, largely due to the fact that one of its senior editors, notably Almar Latour, played a significant role in the negotiations concerning Evan's freedom.

Michael Calore: Fantastic.

Lauren Goode: Truly, it's astonishing, this narrative. Absolutely.

Michael Calore: Eagerly looking forward to reading it.

Lauren Goode: We'll include a link to that in our show notes. Okay, that wraps up our episode for this week. Paresh, it was great having you with us. Thank you.

Paresh Dave: I appreciate you inviting me.

Lauren Goode: A big thank you to everyone tuning in. If you'd like to share your thoughts, we're available on various social media platforms. Details can be found in the show notes. Our outstanding producer, Boone Ashworth, has been behind the scenes. Farewell for the moment, and we look forward to reconnecting next week.

[Outro music for Gadget Lab starts playing]

Something You May Enjoy …

Delivered to your email: A selection of our most significant articles, carefully chosen for you daily.

A faulty update from CrowdStrike brought global computers to a standstill

The Major Headline: When could the Atlantic Ocean potentially fracture?

Introducing the age of extreme online consumption

Olympics: Stay updated with our comprehensive coverage from Paris this summer right here.

WIRED PROMOTIONS

Special Offer on Dyson Airwrap: Complimentary $60 Case Plus a $40 Bonus Gift

Enjoy Up to an Additional 45% Discount During Our August Promotion

Discount Code for Vista Print: Save 20% on Certain Signs

10% Discount Code for Newegg

Special Offer: Peacock Premium Available to Students for Only $1.99 per Month

Discover DJI's Special Deals and Academic Discounts for 2024

Additional Content from WIRED

Critiques and Tutorials

© 2024 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Purchases made through our website may result in WIRED receiving a share of the sale, as a part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retail stores. Replicating, sharing, broadcasting, storing, or using the content found on this website in any form is strictly prohibited without previous written consent from Condé Nast. Advertisement Choices

Choose a global website