Hey, I'm Ryan Reynolds.
At Mint Mobile, we like to do the opposite of what big wireless does.
They charge you a lot, we charge you a little.
So naturally, when they announced they'd be raising their prices due to inflation, we decided to deflate our prices due to not hating you.
That's right. We're cutting the price of Mint Unlimited from $30 a month to just $15 a month.
Give it a try at mintmobile .com slash switch.
$45 up front, payment equivalent to $15 per month, new customers on first three month plan only, taxes and fees extra, speeds lower above 40 gigabytes in detail.
You should celebrate yourself every day, but some days you should celebrate with jewelry.
Whether you want to commemorate an unforgettable moment or just bring some added sparkle to your collection, Blue Nile can offer you expert guidance and a wide assortment of jewelry of the highest quality at the best price.
Go to BlueNile .com today and experience the ease and convenience of shopping Blue Nile, the original online jeweler since 1999.
That's BlueNile .com, BlueNile .com.
My dad works in B2B marketing.
He came by my school for career day and said he was a big ros man.
Then he told everyone how much he loved calculating his return on ad spend.
My friends still laugh at me to this day.
Not everyone gets B2B, but with LinkedIn, you'll be able to reach people who do.
Get $100 credit on your next ad campaign.
Go to LinkedIn .com slash results to claim your credit.
That's LinkedIn .com slash results.
Terms and conditions apply.
LinkedIn, the place to be, to be.
Hello everyone. You're listening to After Hours.
I'm Felix. I'm me here.
And it's just the two of us.
Yes. I'm so relieved to have you back, Felix.
After the coup, by our sound engineer, Peter Linane, he fired you and then we had to fight to get you back.
I was ready to quit the podcast when he fired you.
Anyway, I'm glad we got it all sorted out.
I'm guessing you're thinking of open AI.
Indeed. We just lived through this remarkable news cycle and I wanted to know what you learned about the world, forget about the specific little events, but what it made you think about the way the world works today.
What's it like for you?
If something really dramatic like that happens, is it all consuming?
You're on Twitter 24 seven.
Actually, I have the opposite reaction.
I kind of want to hold it at arm's length because it's so consuming.
Yeah. I'll actually follow other stories, you know, in a way more passionately.
And then when it calms down, I want to think about it a little bit more.
What about you? Yeah, same for me.
I can't really do the step by step back and forth also because in retrospect, so much of it seems meaningless.
Yeah. And so I like to see things played out.
And so in that sense, it's a great opportunity that some time has passed and we can think about it.
Great. And what else did you want to talk about, Felix?
I wanted to talk about new data that we have on mortality rates.
Men die earlier than women, we've always known, but the gap is widening quite dramatically.
It's about six years at this moment in time.
And I was wondering what you make of it.
Male mortality and the rebirth of Sam Altman.
Yes. So, Mier, OpenAI.
Yeah. So, in a way, I'm reminded of that quote, a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Or does it? Yeah. So there's just been this dramatic set of events.
I don't need to recap them for you or for anyone else involving Sam Altman and OpenAI.
And now that the dust has settled, I'm curious what you think the larger lessons of it are?
That's a great question.
It's very easy to be critical of the board activities.
And I think much of the criticism is warranted.
To me, it's maybe most interesting to think about why was it structured this way to begin with?
Why was there an independent nonprofit organization that owns the for -profit part of AI?
And interestingly, it's not completely uncommon.
So, for instance, we have the Mozilla Foundation that owns Firefox, the web browser.
We have Signal, the foundation that owns the for -profit part of the Signal messaging system.
So there's something in this setup that people have found interesting.
And I guess the idea is to not quite trust the for -profit entity to do, quote unquote, the right thing.
Right. Or maybe in the Signal and the Firefox instance to structure the products in a way that generates the most income but is in some sense not good for users.
And indeed that was the case in OpenAI which had a very explicit idea of protecting more general welfare in the context of what is a technology that some people are ambivalent about.
There's a way to think about what the board did as being exactly right.
Maybe the tensions at OpenAI were such that shutting it down, even destroying the 90 billion dollars in value might have been the right thing to do if in fact you are concerned that the release of the technology is a threat to humanity, is happening too fast, is not going the way we should do it if in fact
we want responsible development.
So even with all the mistakes that the board obviously made and the intransparency of it all, which I really dislike, I think you can look at it and say, no, actually that was exactly right.
The structure was set up to do something as dramatic as what they did.
I think your version of the story is absolutely right conceivably, which is that things worked the way they should.
Maybe like we're all going to pay much more attention to the governance of AI now than we would a week ago.
And maybe that's a super valuable thing.
I think that's a half full version of things.
Let me try to give you the half empty version of things.
To me, the larger story here is of this fashion for hybridity in organizational form.
So people like for profit, but they also like not -for -profit.
So they're like, let's put them together and then let's see what happens.
And somehow the not -for -profit will be a break on the for -profit motivations.
And I think that's explicitly the way it was designed.
And I think that hybridity is actually quite problematic for several reasons.
First, not -for -profits have lots of governance problems.
Not -for -profits are not an ideal governance structure.
It's very hard to break them up.
Only attorney generals and the government officials can actually break up a board of a not -for -profit.
There's this deep discontent with shareholder primacy and the for -profit motive.
But in a way, I come away from all this feeling a little bit more reconciled to that as an organizational form that's durable, that makes sense, and that actually doesn't suffer quite as much.
And then what we need, of course, is a powerful state that counters that for -profit motive and regulates for the public interest.
What's very interesting to me about the way you see it is that you posit the real issues of non -profit boards and non -profit governance.
And of course, the solution is government, as if we had the ideal government that would respond in time and regulate responsibly.
Remember at the very beginning when they first started OpenAI, they actually considered a collaboration with government.
I think in part it had to do with funding motivations, but in part it also had to do with - Exactly.
That's maybe the best way to regulate.
And then of course, not surprisingly, the government couldn't really get its act together, couldn't see a straightforward way to support something like OpenAI.
And so the founders steered away.
I think you're absolutely right.
And in a way, I guess if I'm pointing to the idealization of these not -for -profit structures, I may be accused of idealizing some state that's gonna come in and do the right thing, which doesn't appear to be happening either.
I think that's exactly right.
It just feels to me like we're all looking for silver bullets, and none of these things are silver bullets.
Ultimately, there are individuals at the bottom of these things.
I think the concern I have, Felix, is this messy world ends up becoming a substitute for the state.
So it's not just the state is inactive, it's that we go this messy world route, and then we convince ourselves we don't need the state, because then we have this not -for -profit governance that's gonna do the right thing.
Okay. And that, to me, is problematic.
One of the lessons is in these hybrid forms, in particular if economic opportunity and the demand for capital become really, really big, the non -profit part can't really work, which is exactly what we see.
Yes, exactly. So when is it that OpenAI decides that they need a for -profit entity that is owned by the non -profit organization?
Well, once it becomes clear that building chatbots is incredibly expensive.
You need billions and billions of dollars.
Yeah. And then I think competition.
Absolutely. So it's not a coincidence that the crisis breaks out right after Reed Hoffman, who was a board member in the non -profit organization after he leaves to found inflection AI.
And so I think it's both the competition with Antropic that forced the maybe too early release of the OpenAI products and then also the looming specter of Reed Hoffman and other competitors.
Right. The hybrid form I think can work well in the case like Mozilla, where you say we're not going to be quite as profitable, we're not going to do some things that are really lucrative financially, but not really great for users, we won't cut corners.
If that tension is not too big, maybe hybrid can work.
If the tension is huge because everybody thinks it's the next big thing, I don't think it can really work.
Well, I think that's exactly right.
And of course, that's the nature of external funding and scale.
I think it's an issue of scale.
If you're trying to scale and you're trying to scale fast.
Yeah. The hybrid form is complex.
I think the other thing I took away from all this, Felix, and I'm curious what you made of it, is the attention around one individual, Sam Altman and the degree to which his activities are being tracked and understood to be meaningful.
It strikes me as this variant of capitalism that we're living through is just remarkably messianic.
And by that, I mean characterized by hero worship in a religious fervor for specific kinds of individuals.
And the weight on talent and the idea that there are these very, very, very few people who are the only people who can do these things.
It seems quite remarkable.
Now that, of course, is the story of Elon Musk.
That, of course, is the story of Sam Altman.
I think it's a little bit in finance, the story of Warren Buffett.
It is this worship of singular individuals as being uniquely qualified and able so that the gradient of talent after you choose that next person down is so far off.
And that whole mythology, it seems to have captivated us so much.
And to me, this story really manifested that.
Did you have a similar kind of reaction, just about the amount of attention to one person in the world?
That seems exactly right to me.
And in particular, this one person in the world, maybe he's a really talented investor.
Maybe he ran Y Combinator really successfully, but the deep technical expertise for sure lies somewhere else in the organization.
It's the idea that somehow you can't do it without him.
Right. And one twist that I thought was so interesting was, remember when all the employees said they would leave if he wouldn't come back to the organization.
And that was generally interpreted in exactly the fashion that you proposed.
Namely, oh my God, were nothing without him.
When in fact, I think it's basically reflecting that they're working on this tender offer and that promises to value the company at roughly $90 billion.
And then, of course, for employees, it's like the worst thing on the planet.
If it all goes away and all of a sudden the company is not valuable at all, it doesn't really have to do with the inability to build something that is very similar.
And you see it, chat GPT has no exact equivalent at this moment in time, but there's competition around the corner.
Exactly. It was actually interesting to see how many companies already set up their tech in a way that if it turns out that chat GPT is not the winning horse, that they can easily switch to something else.
So that is what makes it all the more puzzling.
You're right, because I don't think the technological lead is so great.
I don't think they are so alone in the world.
I guess the final thing Felix, I'd love to get your thoughts on is, what does this make you think about AI and the future of AI?
So we talked a little bit about governance, we talked a little bit about the Altman piece of the story, but has it changed the way you understand the potential of AI or the problems of AI?
Is artificial general intelligence real?
Are we close? I have no idea.
And in particular, I find it so interesting how even the leading luminaries vehemently disagree about how close we are.
What's most interesting to me at this moment in the deployment of AI is that even if we're thousands of miles away from that point where machines can really take over, we now have real decisions to make that involve AI, that have incredible consequence.
I'll just give you one example.
Cheap drones are now used in the Ukraine and everywhere else.
How do you defend against cheap drones?
Well, you try to scramble the communication signals.
And so often the way the drones are not quite as effective as you might have expected is because whoever controls the drone loses communication with the drone.
And as a result, at this moment in time, there's not that much you can do.
Well, there's AI. You can now tell the drones and if in fact you lose communication, you decide what the target is and you shoot.
And that's a decision that doesn't really depend on how close are we to the machines taking over.
That's like a real decision that the U .S.
military and others are now thinking about.
And that's informed my view in the sense that the concerns around the technology are real and they come faster at us than I would have anticipated a couple of years back.
What is your sense?
Where do you come out?
I have two thoughts about this.
One is when we talked about AI in the spring and about the concerns about AI, there was this existential question.
And I think that's real and it's as real as I thought it was then.
I guess I also feel that we're coming up on the 12 month anniversary of the release of chat GPT.
And in a way, my thinking about AI hasn't changed that much from before chat GPT, which is I think it is a transformational technology.
It will take quite a while to implement and it is in many ways more of a continuity of technological change and less of a discontinuity.
So I guess one of the ways to think about this Felix to me has always been, is it a discontinuous change where just the slope of the line changes and everything changes.
And I guess this last 12 months have just been this remarkable cycle of hype and excitement, but I don't know if my priors have moved that much.
That doesn't mean it's not transformational.
I'm still of the mind that it's fundamentally continuous.
Notwithstanding your example or ones that are coming about in radiology where we now see much higher detection rates relative to human radiologists of cancerous tumors, it still feels like progress, but it doesn't feel that different than what we've been doing for the last 20 years.
Yeah. I really want to think about over the next year or two is to try to understand if this is fundamentally discontinuous or just a continuation of the remarkable things that we've been doing for the last 50 years.
We will come back and talk about this.
I'm sure because I think it's a super interesting topic.
Hey, I'm Ryan Reynolds at mint mobile.
We like to do the opposite of what big wireless does.
They charge you a lot.
We charge you a little.
So naturally when they announced they'd be raising their prices due to inflation, we decided to deflate our prices due to not hating you.
That's right. We're cutting the price of mint unlimited from $30 a month to just $15 a month.
Give it a try at mint mobile .com.
Slash switch. $45 upfront payment equivalent to $15 per month.
New customers on first three month plan only taxes and fees extra speeds lower above 40 gigabytes details with the redfin app, you'll know the moment your next place hits the market, whether you're looking to buy your dream home or rent a sweet apartment, give redfin your gotta have it wish list of property
features and you'll receive real time notifications tailored just for you.
Ready to see it up close and personal scheduling a tour is just a tap away.
Don't wait to find your perfect match.
Download the redfin app and start searching today.
Jewelry isn't a gift you give just once.
It's a way to remind your loved one of a beautiful moment.
Every time they see it blue Nile can help you find the gift that says how you feel and says it beautifully with expert guidance and a wide assortment of jewelry of the highest quality at the best price go to blue Nile .com and experience the convenience of shopping blue Nile, the original online jeweler
since 1999. That's blue Nile .com to find the perfect jewelry gift for any occasion.
Blue Nile .com. Okay, Felix, some interesting data about male mortality.
There is new data that shows a gap between men and women that has increased in quite a dramatic fashion.
So it's about six years difference now.
COVID I think is one of the reasons men were in poor health than women prior to COVID and so COVID took a larger toll.
There's some evidence that men are maybe not surprisingly not as likely to seek medical help or they seek medical help at the later point in time.
And that contributes to mortality.
And then there's also some evidence that some of the jobs that are held more frequently by men that involve lots of interaction with lots of people contributed to a higher death toll.
But it's evidence on top of an increasing gap that started even before COVID.
And I'm curious what you make of it.
What does it say about being male in this time and age?
What are the reasons why we see this discrepancy and why would it increase over time?
Yeah, this is such an interesting topic, Felix.
And to place it in perspective, there have been these pieces about what are sometimes called the deaths of despair.
There is a sense that there's something general going on.
It's sometimes framed in terms of white men.
It's sometimes framed in terms of white men without a college education, because a lot of this is also particularly pronounced amongst folks who do not have a college education.
And I struggle with this because whenever it's portrayed as a general phenomenon, I think it becomes a recipe for a little bit of sloppy thinking.
So one view of this, Felix, is there's something general going on that men are going down the tubes.
The alternative view is, well, look at opioids, look at violent death, and look at suicide.
I think the data are more consistent with remarkable struggles at the bottom 10 % of the population and not a generalized problem with male mortality.
So that's just another way of saying, I think what's really happening is the bottom 10th is just struggling like crazy.
And it's struggling like crazy with fentanyl and it's struggling like crazy with violence and it's struggling like crazy with unemployment and being underemployed, and that also happens to be populated by people without a college education, and some of whom are white.
But I don't know if there's a generalized phenomenon here, as it is portrayed to be, as much as it is insight into what is happening for that target of the population.
And the reason it's important is because the narrative is sometimes so grand with these things that it makes you focus our attention in the wrong place.
Does that resonate with you, Felix?
Yeah, I think so much of what you said sounds exactly right.
So the first thing to say is if you look at mental health, depression's much more prevalent among women than among men.
So it's not as though there are these two worlds and women are thriving and are doing really well and men are struggling, right there and then that's not quite right.
Women have higher rates of attempted suicide.
The reason that men end up killing themselves and women often don't is that men use guns.
I'm not sure I completely disagree with the general view that nothing is wrong with men.
And the places where I would probably look is educational attainment.
Look at universities, there's three women to two men.
Many places there's now reverse affirmative action in favor of men.
And my first intuition is always that's really strange because for hundreds of years, we prevented women from thriving.
Now they're doing well for a minute and a half and for crisis and we have to change the education system and so on and so on.
But it is true, in particular, when you then take into account economic status and also race, the combination of being a boy, being non -white and being lower socioeconomic status, that combination is very powerful in predicting more trouble.
Yeah, I think you're absolutely right to relocate our attention, which is I think the mortality rates are interesting.
Actually, the problem is more with boys and young men that we should maybe be paying more attention to and the educational numbers are striking.
I also share your sense that this segment of the population happens to stumble and then everyone cries in a rush, but it is important for overall welfare, and I made mention of this during our Africa episode, that young men who go wrong, it's problematic, they become violent and it's a problem for society.
So even if we just care about it from a social perspective, it's important to think about them.
I think we have to struggle with two things.
One is it's just the loss of status.
The general phenomenon here is any dispossessed group in a hierarchy, I think struggles with that dispossession.
There have been a lot of groups doing a lot better over the last 30 or 40 years and mortality in earnings in all kinds of things, but the people who are going down in the elevator, even if they are still now doing quite well by most standards, that loss of status is very hard and it's very confusing.
So that's the first thing, and I think that's worth just acknowledging.
Now, how much pity should you have?
I'm not so sure, but it is a hard transition.
That is a difficult thing.
And then the second is with young men, I think we have to think a little bit about the way in which technology is alienating them and the way in which they are becoming isolated and that isolation is fueling, I think, so many of these behaviors.
Anyway, that's a long -winded way of saying, I think mortality is one issue.
I think it's actually a separable issue from the issue that is the really important issue that you're raising, which is how are young men and boys doing?
And there I think the data is a little troubling.
Yeah, there is, I think, greater concern.
And what I didn't know and what really surprised me was that some of the most prevalent gender stereotypes don't really seem to be true.
So for instance, I think one stereotype is boys are more resilient than girls.
Yeah. And I think the research now shows, no, actually, if you look at, say, the influence of income in your neighborhood on boys and girls, boys are much more influenced by the circumstances under which they grow up.
They are much more affected by low quality schools, and low quality school is worse for boys than for girls.
Family stability matters more for boys than for girls.
One narrative was, yeah, boys will be OK.
That's actually not true.
If you wanted to say, well, one gender will probably be OK, it's the girls that will be OK, or say the stereotype that boys are more adventurous than girls.
Look at, say, college data.
Many more women go abroad than men.
Mobility rates among women, much higher than mobility rates among men.
And so the kinds of things that we traditionally associated with being male, many of these things are actually not true.
And that's one reason to pay extra attention to in particular, if, as you point out, it hits the weakest groups the worst.
It's really this combination of being male and being poor and being nonwhite.
That combination is particularly powerful.
I think you're so right about all that data on robustness.
My favorite version of that is if you look at divorce and you look at how men and women feel about it five or 10 years later, the answer is women are just so much more robust.
Oh, really? Even if it's initiated by the man, it's unequivocal that women are just much more robust in these kinds of circumstances than men.
So I think that's certainly been true.
The thing about this Felix that strikes me as complex is it is complex to focus on subgroups, and part of what happens when we start to talk about men in this way, and you referenced this early on, is, well, how much should we be worried about them?
They've been on top for a long time.
So there is this instinct that focusing on historically successful groups is problematic that resonates with me actually.
It also resonates with me that it's wrong to neglect people who are suffering.
I think the way I've reconciled it is I really want to think hard about socioeconomic status more than anything else.
I'm more interested in that, the bottom decile of the population, as opposed to thinking in these other ways.
I don't know, Felix.
Does that resonate?
I do share your concern about helping out groups in particular, if they have been historically treated in a fair or better manner than others.
That doesn't feel quite right.
At the same time, maybe the shift that I do like is to shift away from individual responsibility towards talking about groups in the first place.
That's actually something I like, as opposed to, oh, Bob is lazy, or Bob doesn't get his act together, or Bob doesn't x, y, z, to think systematically about what is it in the life of Bobs that holds them back in some way?
And can we remove some of those obstacles?
The second thing in the development of the human brain, there are these two periods in early lives when gender differences are particularly big.
So one is four to five years old or so, when girls just develop faster than boys, and the other is 14, 15 or so.
And those are exactly the times when you make really big decisions.
How hard do you work in school?
Do you like school?
Thinking about these gender differences and how we might make it easier for everyone, because frankly, what we sometimes forget in the group conversation is it's fabulous for girls if boys do well in school.
And it's fabulous for boys if girls do.
This is not a zero sum question.
The hesitation around the conversation that focuses on specific groups, I think neglects some of the true gender differences that we need to think about, how they work themselves into differences in performance.
And then also this zero sum mentality a little bit, oh, we no longer care about the performance of girls.
No, of course we do.
But it would be great for everyone if everyone did so much better than they do today.
Well, just to be clear, I totally agree with you that emphasizing group differences is really important and they are there and they are real and they point to structural issues in our society.
That has got to be true.
At the same time, as in when we were talking about the deaths of despair, that literature was really focused on white men for a long time and about how much their mortality rates have been increasing, meaning they're dying younger.
And then I find those grand narratives very complicated and very problematic.
And I think the reason why is those grand narratives end up obscuring real problems.
And again, it goes to that bottom 10%.
I find these conversations about other things very interesting.
They're very important.
They're undoubtedly true.
But I do worry sometimes they obscure our ability to attend to the people who are most in need from a purely economic perspective.
And that's true in that deaths of despair literature.
I think that's true in some sense in the income inequality literature.
We should just be laser focused on the bottom decile in my mind.
And having said that, you're right.
All these other conversations are hugely important.
They're hugely interesting.
And it's funny Felix, you're always challenging me to keep two thoughts in my head at the same time, which is of course, very important.
Like you did in the last conversation and here, well, me here, you can pay attention to the bottom 10 % and you can also care about group differences.
I get that and that's got to be true, but there is sometimes substitution.
There is attention being paid in one place and they're not being paid in another place.
Well, all I can say, Felix, is doing this podcast is increasing my chance of living longer.
So I'm delighted for that purpose with nothing else.
OK, Felix, recommendations.
Hopefully something that will let us both live longer.
I'm not sure on that front, but I was so excited when I saw the show that I want to recommend because, of course, I was thinking about you right away.
Have you seen bodies and mini series that streams on Netflix right now?
No, it's a detective story, of course, which is why I was thinking of you.
It plays at four different points in time and radically different points in time, as in the first one is in the 19th century.
The last one is far out into the future.
And I'm not going to say too much because I want you to watch it and enjoy it.
But what happens is that there are some commonalities across the crime that you observe at these four points in time.
But you also see the different responses given technology, given how police was organized, giving the individuals who were involved in the tragedy that takes place.
So it's a fabulous idea that has a little to do with time travel, but doesn't really have all the problems that usually time travel stories have.
Wow, that sounds fantastic.
I'm all for cop shows and detective shows.
That's great. Yeah, it's really fabulous.
So by the way, Felix, this morning I did have a Felix and me here recommendation thing happened to me, which is as we were driving this morning, the song came on, which was the Brian Eno John Cale album.
And you know what I couldn't remember is I couldn't remember if I had recommended it and you liked it or you had recommended it and then I liked it, which is just a testament to the fusion of our recommendation brains.
Yeah. And what's a little scary is I also don't remember.
I know I love that music, but I can't quite.
I can't remember who said it.
Yeah. I don't know.
Anyway, so my recommendation is I have a tradition of recommending silly British game shows.
So they've taken the game show and they've perfected it.
And in part, what they've done is they've had comedians who play a large role in the game show.
So most game shows are rather vapid because they feature regular people.
They have figured out that if you have a game show, but it's got comedians who are the contestants, it's hilarious.
So I've historically recommended university challenge and only connect.
But the one I'd like to recommend now is task master, which is somewhat variable in quality given the season and who the comedians are, but my God, is it hilarious?
They basically have comedians and then they make them do the most ridiculous and creative and wonderful things.
And then they all compete, but it's all in the great spirit of fun.
And it happens to be entirely on YouTube.
And you can watch all the seasons.
Is it a little bit like whose line is it anyway?
Do you remember that way back through Kerry and his friends?
It's a little bit like that in that I love comedians generally, but they don't have to just do standup.
They're just so wonderfully improvisational.
Now whose line is it anyway?
It was really improv.
It was really improv.
Yeah, this is like improv, but they're just put in these weird circumstances and they have to deal with the weird circumstances and not really with each other, but just with these tasks.
Anyway, so Taskmaster is my pick.
There you go. Fabulous.
And this is it for tonight.
Thank you everyone for listening.
This was After Hours from the TED Audio Collective.
Yeah. My dad works in B2B marketing.
He came by my school for career day and said he was a big ROAS man.
Then he told everyone how much he loved calculating his return on ad spend.
My friends still laugh at me to this day.
Not everyone gets B2B, but with LinkedIn, you'll be able to reach people who do get a hundred dollar credit on your next ad campaign.
Go to LinkedIn .com slash results to claim your credit.
That's LinkedIn .com slash results, terms and conditions apply.
LinkedIn. The place to be, to be.
Over the last 75 years, over 10 ,000 chemicals have been introduced to our food supply, yet the EU only allows 300 food additives.
But at Thrive Market, we bring our members the highest quality brands and restrict more than 1 ,000 ingredients found at conventional grocery stores.
Making the switch is easy with our healthy swaps scanner, which finds better versions of all your favorite pantry, snacking and home essentials without the added junk, dyes and fillers.
Plus it's all delivered straight to your door.
So if you're looking to shop at a grocery store that actually cares about your health, go to thrivemarket .com slash podcast, and you'll get 30 % off your first order and a free gift.
Are you still quoting 30 year old movies?
Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days?
Do you still think Discover isn't widely accepted?
If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past.
Discover is accepted at 99 % of places that take credit cards nationwide.
And every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back, welcome to the now it pays to discover.
Learn more at discover .com slash credit card based on the February, 2024 Nielsen report.
