00:07:37
Do you want them to stay away from homes when they’re building these data centers? Yeah. I want them to be in the right location within a community.
00:07:44
Mr. President– If you look at Loudoun County, if you look at some of these counties, they’re making billions of dollars. Taxes are going way down. The data centers are making an absolute fortune. But now the people are going to benefit directly, whether it’s teachers that get paid a bonus, whether it’s people that live in the community that get paid a dividend– you could call it a dividend because a dividend sounds right. It’s important to stress that this would be entirely voluntary on the part of the companies, Major. The president can’t force them to provide teacher pay or any of the other things that he described today that would be so great for local communities. And that reference to Loudoun County, that’s in Northern Virginia, which was very bullish on data centers, but is, like much of America, reassessing some of the implications of accelerated data center development. Nancy Cordes, thank you very much. I want to bring in Gaurab Bansal. He’s the executive director for Responsible Innovation Labs. He was also a deputy cabinet secretary in the Obama White House. So big meeting at the White House today, a huge convening this agreement, constitution of self-regulation– how should my audience interpret that? Well, Major, thanks so much for having me. Let’s take a step back on how we got here. A few big companies, largely in America, built the most powerful AI. And thousands of companies, large and small, use that AI to make products that reach everyone in the audience. And this month, one company’s AI got out of its test area. It’s a bit like my dog finding a hole in the fence or, frankly, running out of the gate. And so the heads of these big companies are asking to be regulated. And so we find ourselves today with these CEOs at the White House. And my take is that– I’m not sure history was made today with this nonbinding constitution that Nancy’s reporting on. But it’s clear the president’s message was, we’re not going to slow down, and we’re not going to slow any of these companies down. And from my perspective, given the serious questions in front of the American people, it was a missed opportunity. Anthropic’s IPO, according to a report that surfaced this morning from Reuters, tells investors that Anthropic models, based on their own estimates– and I’m quoting here– “could pose catastrophic risks to humanity.” It could have “self-preserving behaviors to resist shutdown.” These are all the kinds of things that have increased public awareness, 1, and public concern, 2. Yet, in the face of that, we have a self-regulation celebration at the White House and the president still on the full-speed-ahead trajectory. Look, I think if anyone in your audience is asking if there has ever been a company going public that’s said that they could bring about the extinction of humanity, I think it’s a question worth asking. Look, we have to be clear-eyed about this. We have to listen to the people building this technology when they’re warning us about these serious risks. And we should talk about what those risks are. In fact, there are many risks that are more near term than the extinction of humanity. It could be jobs. We’re seeing young people have a hard time finding jobs. It could be cybersecurity and fraud and, frankly, the concentration of wealth and power. But the reality is, no one can predict the future. There’s a range of outcomes here. And we have to walk and chew gum. That goes for the companies. It goes for the policymakers. This technology could transform life for the better. It could certainly make things a lot worse. And the good news is, if we’re serious about this, there’s a lot of space between stopping, on the one hand, which, by the way, there’s no button that stops this innovation. It’s going to continue, certainly here and elsewhere. And there’s a lot of space between the other extreme, which is do nothing. And every sophisticated industry in America has a set of guidelines and guardrails and rules. And by the way, those industries tend to lead the world. And it’s important that America does lead the world in developing this AI technology. But there’s a lot of contradiction here. And I wouldn’t blame any viewers who find it a bit confusing. And, Gaurab, there’s a thing that’s going on right now in this conversation where people watching this say to themselves, we’ve seen this movie before, meaning the promise of the internet, self-regulation. And good things happen, without question. But social media created harms that have now become harms that can be successfully litigated. And in that litigation, we find, in the case of Meta and others, known instances where there were internal warnings about hazards of certain things that were ignored for profit. Hello? Yeah. Look, I think one thing I hear a lot of– and I’m sitting here in San Francisco today. And I see this in the AI sector and tech generally, is, we need better messaging. But I think the American people are pretty smart. They know broken promises when they see them. And what tech needs to do– because, look, there is considerable upside here. We could see doctors using AI. We could see scientific discovery advancing. Kids can get tutoring. A farmer can get soil readings with much faster technology much cheaper. So, look, there are upsides here. But the American people deserve a better bargain. And better messaging alone does not achieve that. So when I think of missed opportunities today– look, who is in the room? This was too focused on the views of a small number of Big Tech players, some of the same players you referenced in your comment. There were no startup innovators. I guarantee you that the next great American company is not anyone anyone has heard of yet. And they weren’t there today. Workers weren’t there today. The people thinking through how AI shows up in hospitals and schools and small businesses, your bank account, they weren’t there today. So, look, we all have a stake in setting the course forward. And it comes down to, what are you going to do? Not just, what are you going to say?
00:13:38
Gaurab Bansal, I appreciate your time and expertise very much. Thank you. Thank you, Major. Lindsay Clancy’s defense team made a stunning assertion in court today. Her attorney, Kevin Reddington, argued the charges should be dropped, all of them, because he said there’s no evidence Clancy killed her three young children. In the previous trial– I’m sure you remember– Clancy admitted to a series of facts, including that she strangled Cora, Dawson, and Callan to death, but pled not guilty by reason of postpartum psychosis. Here is what Clancy’s defense team had to say earlier. And then you’ll also hear part of the prosecution’s response. This entire case is based on speculation. Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this? Now, for the first time, the defendant is arguing that there’s no evidence that she did this. I suggest to you that the entire record is voluminous as to the information supporting the fact that she did this.
00:14:46
CBS News legal contributor Caroline Polisi, who has followed this case very closely and has been helpful to us in that process, joins us now. Caroline, two things the defense said there– where’s the admission? Where is the evidence? They’re different. There was plenty of evidence. How do you evaluate what the defense put forward today? Yeah. I think it was a bit shocking for those of us who have followed this case for a while. But I do want to sort of temper the shock and awe in that this isn’t Kevin Reddington walking into that courtroom, proclaiming Lindsay Clancy is innocent in a vacuum. He’s arguing specifically about this Rule 25 motion when it goes to a motion for a directed verdict. He’s essentially saying that the Commonwealth didn’t meet its burden of proof when it comes to actual evidence that Clancy committed these crimes. It does seem a little bit inconsistent. But I would note that there’s a difference between, quote unquote, “admitting to doing it” versus not contesting the issue. They made a legal strategy during the first trial not to contest the question of whether or not Lindsay Clancy actually committed these killings. Instead, they made the decision to focus on her state of mind and put forth this defense of a not criminally responsible due to mental disease or defect. So I think this is Lindsay’s defense team letting the Commonwealth know that now that they’ve got a fresh start, all avenues are open to them, and they will be putting the Commonwealth to its burden this time around. As you know and our audience well remembers, this went to mistrial the first time because the jury could not reach a verdict. And there was one juror in particular that is now the focus of the defense. How common is that? What did we learn about that today? Yeah. It’s not unprecedented, but it’s not very common. This all is due to all of this post-trial publicity and things that are alleged by some of the jurors giving interviews. But really, the heart of Kevin Reddington’s motion goes to this issue of whether or not a mistrial was actually needed, whether the judge should have done a more fulsome investigation of that one, quote unquote, “holdout juror” because the foreperson had sent a note to the judge indicating that juror was not actually following the judge’s instructions on the law. So that’s different from being a holdout juror just applying the facts as he saw them differently to the law. That’s a lot different from what the allegation was. And so the defense would like to further question this juror to get his phone records, whether or not he was accessing the internet during that time, and then dig deeper into this issue of whether or not he was truthful on that voir dire form. So all of these issues have been punted, essentially, to November 2, which is the next hearing date. And we’ll be there, and I know you’ll help us. Caroline Polisi, thank you so much. Capitol Hill today, former Special Counsel Jack Smith appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his investigations and indictments, eventually, of President Trump. Smith said he would have brought those charges, regardless of Trump’s political party. Take a listen to how he explained. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation. If asked whether to prosecute a former president today based on the same facts, I would do so, regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat. Lee Holmes joins us now. He’s a former Chief Counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee for then chairman Lindsey Graham. Do you believe him, what he just said? That he had a case he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt? And that if it were brought against another president, Republican or Democrat, based on that evidence that he put before the grand jury that secured the indictment, he would proceed, meaning there’s no politics and no bias. Yeah. On this question of whether there’s politics or bias, I think Republicans actually did a good job today of laying out the scope of the investigation that Jack Smith did, 400 Republican individuals and organizations, 44 Republican members of Congress. And then, beyond just the partisan side, 50 journalists, they disclose that were wrapped up in this and–
00:19:15
Subject to investigation or subpoenas. Yes, that’s right. And the question of members of Congress– and this is a bone that Republicans have been gnawing on for some period of time– something called toll records, which, in common parlance, people think that means their transcribed phone conversations. Jack Smith took a point to say, no, it’s just who you called and when. That’s it. There’s no actual transcription of what was said. Material difference, an important difference in that? There is a material difference in that, and it’s important. So, to be clear, he got toll records of members of Congress. And that’s the to/froms and what we call the duration of the call. He did get content from the National Archives of members of Congress, but that was from the White House phone side of it. So it wasn’t a direct subpoena to Verizon or AT&T. And which was archived as a matter of common practice? Correct. Got it. And what is it, when you look at that scope of the numbers you just described, that strikes you as either alarming or outside of the norms? Well, the thing that’s outside of the norm is that this is all a matter of privileged information. So these are not normal people. These are members of Congress. And under our separation of powers, they have certain immunities to assert. This is like journalists. This is like lawyers. And when you’re going at people that are in special positions, where they have sensitive information, you need to proceed differently. And this is why you saw this bipartisan conversation around non-disclosure orders. So there’s different things here. The subpoena gets the information. But then you can go to the judge, and you can say, this needs to stay secret.
00:21:11
Right. Don’t release this publicly. Now, Jack Smith’s argument, which is made before but he made again today, was there was a risk, if those names got out, there might be pressured, or something might warp their testimony or their inclination or whatever. And that could damage the investigation. That was his representation. And he really focused on Trump. But I don’t really buy this idea because this investigation was going on was not a well-kept secret. No, it wasn’t. And so I just don’t buy it. The proper way to proceed here would have been–
00:21:45
It might have actually helped Jack Smith if the breadth of this investigation had been publicly disclosed, because there would have been some public backlash. He might have pulled it back in a little bit. Absolutely. The proper way for him to proceed here was to give the members of Congress notice and let them assert whatever immunity they wanted. And that’s why, again, today, you heard bipartisan calls to reform the nondisclosure order process. Senator Coons brought it up.
00:22:14
A Democrat from Delaware. That’s right. He has a bill on the matter. And he basically said, if you’re worried about this, I have a solution. And so it recently passed the House. We’ll see if it gets through the Senate. Lee Holmes, I appreciate your time and your expertise, as always. Thank you. Thank you.
00:22:31
When you hear “American steel,” you might think Pittsburgh or a state in what we commonly refer to as the Rust Belt. So why is Iowa getting the largest steel plant in American history? Our Lana Zak explores if any backroom deals might have gone on or might need to go on in the future. Plus, a nine-month-long data breach at the Pentagon exposed sensitive information of nearly 3 million people, a majority, as you might well expect, in the military. We’ll have details on what was compromised. And incumbents, well, they typically have the upper hand in elections. But what if some voters don’t realize you’re the actual incumbent? Senator John Husted of Ohio is finding out what that’s like. The Takeoutreturns in 90 seconds. Welcome back to The Takeout. President Trump announced yesterday the steel manufacturing company Mesabi Metallics will build a $15-billion steel plant in Iowa and is scheduled to do so over the next few years. This plant would be the largest of its kind in American history and would reportedly produce 7.5 million pounds of steel each year. But this deal is raising a lot of questions. Joining me now is CBS News National correspondent Lana Zak. Lana, what are the questions? I believe, in Iowa, this came as kind of a shocker. Well, there were a lot of people in Iowa that are super excited about this. In fact, Republicans and Democrats are celebrating the idea that there are going to be an investment of $15 billion in the state. But there are a lot of people that are scratching their heads about how this was announced before the tax incentives have even been worked out. And, Major, the governor just said a little bit ago that she’s going to bring the legislature back on Friday. And they are going to vote on changing– they have to make an Amendment to Iowa’s investments. It’s called MEGA. And it’s going to have to allow for more money and tax breaks than are currently allowed under Iowa code to try and make this deal happen. But the deal has already been announced. And as so many people are saying, that puts you in a really bad position– or Republicans, at least, in a bad position– when it comes to trying to negotiate any of those tax breaks. So that might be a challenge. But Howard Lutnick yesterday, when he was asked about it, he says it’s a done deal. Where would it be in Iowa? And what natural resources, if any, are there to draw upon to make steel in Iowa? Because I would think, Lana, if steel was easy to make in Iowa, steel would have already been made in Iowa. Yeah. Iowa steel, that’s not what you first think of when you’re thinking of steel. But I predicted, even before it was announced, where this was going to be, that it would be along the Mississippi River in Iowa’s first congressional district. And do you know, Major, where it was announced that it was going to be? In Lee County, in Iowa’s first congressional district, along the Mississippi River. So for the company, they say that that makes sense because the Mississippi is a major shipping venue. So logistics– fine. But the first congressional district is the site of Mariann Miller-Meeks, who is fighting so hard to try and retain that seat. And let’s not deceive ourselves. This was a political announcement made five weeks before an election in a very competitive district. And wouldn’t you know it? Iowa’s first district is going to get that major investment, Major. And before we get too excited about it, a lot of people have made comparisons now to Foxconn, that factory in Wisconsin that the president announced was going to get a $10-billion investment. Four years later, that investment was rounded down to just $672 million.
00:26:39
And that was in Wisconsin. We all remember that. Lana Zak, I appreciate it very much. Thank you. Coming up, the Supreme Court allows a controversial Trump administration immigration policy to resume. We have the details next here on The Takeout. Welcome back. Thanks for hanging out. Here’s a look at what else we– and now you– are watching this evening, Supreme Court temporarily allowing the Trump administration to resume sending deportees to countries that are not their own. High court plans to hold arguments on this whole question in December. But in the meantime, migrants will be sent again– meaning these flights will resume– to countries across the world, including war-torn nations, like South Sudan and the Central African Republic. Many of the deportees are not given notice where they’re going to be sent. Data breach at the Pentagon exposed sensitive personal information of nearly 3 million people. Officials are concerned. Hello. This could have national security implications because much of the data includes information on active duty and reserve members of the military, including their Social Security numbers and job titles. No evidence yet this information has been used maliciously, no knowledge of who is behind this particular hack. Political panel time– Kendra Barkoff Lamy, Democratic strategist and former press secretary to then Vice President Biden. David Avella is a Republican strategist, executive director of GOPAC. All right. In Ohio, Sherrod Brown, running to return to the Senate– we’ll get to some of the interesting polling dynamics on that race in a minute– has released a new ad. And it’s kind of interesting. So take a look.
00:28:19
Listen to this [BLEEP]. People living in poverty are just not very– they’re not very experienced at navigating the real world. Yes. So that is real comments from his Republican rival in the race, Jon Husted. And Ohioans, in theory, I believe, looking at it and responding negatively. Good ad? Well, look at this ad, that if you take it beyond just that clip that Sherrod Brown uses to benefit him, it is ultimately an ad that– or comments that talked about unless government does it, it doesn’t count. And that’s what this town loves, that unless government’s doing it, it’s not going to count, unless it’s government benefits, unless it’s government programs. And what Treasurer Husted– or now, Senator Husted– was saying is that, look, there are other ways to do this. What I want to teach people is how to budget. I want to teach people how they don’t need to have the government to provide them for everything. And people love it, Kendra, when Washington tries to teach them, don’t they? Yeah, it goes really, really well. Look, it’s a fantastic ad. It almost writes itself because you put that within anywhere in the state–
00:29:28
Book-ended by expletives, ladies and gentlemen. Things that I cannot say on air. I wish I could, but I can’t say those kinds of things on air. But, look, if I’m an Ohioan voting, and I see an ad where someone is talking about how poor people don’t understand, and I’m somebody who uses some of these benefits or maybe used to use some of these benefits, I feel like that’s pretty degrading and demeaning. And I wouldn’t want to vote for somebody like that. So polls are not predictive. They are not anything other than instructive in the moment in which they are taken– a disclaimer I always want to put out polls. But I want to show you the two Marist polls from Ohio. In the Senate race, Sherrod Brown, 51%, Jon Husted, 43%. What’s interesting here is, 25% of those surveyed by Marist still think Sherrod Brown is the incumbent Senator. He’s not. And I’m not sure if that helps or hurts. Anyway, the Ohio governor’s race, Amy Acton, the Democrat, 50%. Vivek Ramaswamy, 44%. This strikes me as interesting in Ohio because, in the Trump era, it has been moving solidly in the Republican direction. It looks like a bit of a warning sign. You made a great point, that polls don’t determine outcomes. They do not. Turnout determines outcomes, correct? And in Ohio, we have a strong track record the last few cycles of being able to turn out Republican–
00:30:48
Strong state party, strong county party. Absolutely. And you’re going to see that advantage. You see it in the primaries in particular because Ohio is not a voter registration state. You don’t have to pick a party. But if you look at where turnout occurs, it happens in the Republican primary. And as we spend these next couple of weeks and the governor’s race continues to get defined and this Senate race gets defined, you’re going to see Ohio move back into the Republican column. And let me just say one other thing– and you make up a good point– about polls and Senate races. The last US Senate race that Susan Collins was in, everybody said, oh, she’s going to lose by 10 to 12 points, in Maine. She won by 8. This is a lady who wins by 17 points on average in her reelection races. It’s about turnout, not polls. All right. Kendra, you’re going to have about a minute and 15. Take it away. It’s actually, I think, about gas prices and diesel prices and affordability. I think at the end of the day, you’re seeing diesel prices at an all-time record high. That involves truckers who can’t get their trucks from one place to the next. Affordability is on the ticket this fall. And I think that is going to be the key to who is going to come out and vote. If people are paying exorbitant prices, you’re going to see Democrats turn out in droves for candidates. You’re going to see Republicans and independents coming and voting for Democrats who want their prices lower.
00:32:09
Do you believe these polls in Ohio? I think that if you look at what people are saying, which is they want their gas prices lowered and they want affordability, then yes, I think that is where things are leaning towards. David, you got 20 seconds. She brings up an interesting point. Because if, to your point, they still think Sherrod Brown is the incumbent, and your point, that it’s about affordability, how is Sherrod Brown not the problem? But he’s not. He’s not. He’s the challenger. I know. I understand that– a voter going in, thinking he’s the problem. They’ll figure that one out, I bet. Kendra Barkoff Lamy and David Avell– Avella. You got it. Avella from GOPAC. Look up what GOPAC is. Anyway, coming up, new book looks at how the Middle East became– still is, been quite a while– a tinderbox and why the region has become associated with forever wars. My conversation with the author of that new book is next here on The Takeout. Welcome back to The Takeout. If you watch this show regularly– and I thank you if you do– you know that by necessity, we focus a fair amount on conflicts in the Middle East. How did this region get to this level of instability, this level of volatility? The Cauldron, The Making of the Modern Middle East is a new book that tries to get at that very set of questions. Earlier, I spoke with its author, Simon Sebag Montefiore about the book and the history of the region. Simon, where is the US war with Iran right now, from your perspective? I believe that contrary to the conventional wisdom and most of what you have read in the newspapers and the media, I think, actually, the Trump administration has been focused on an economic blockade that has converted what appeared to be Iran’s chief asset to strangle the world’s oil supplies, they have been able to gradually and quietly convert that into a ligature that is actually going to strangle Iran itself and turn it into Iran’s chief liability, which prevents the sale of oil. And it looks like, if one watches the number of barrels of oil that are coming out through the Straits of Hormuz but also in the East-West pipeline and other outlets, it looks like the blockade is working. And it also looks like this is really going to tighten the economic crisis and the governmental crisis within Iran. It doesn’t mean anything is going to happen today or tomorrow. The Iranian regime is going to be even more frantic. And there’s nothing as dangerous as a wounded tiger. They are likely to try anything to escalate. But the real danger for them comes when the war stops and peace returns, or some sort of peace returns to Iran, and it becomes clear what a disaster this government is and how the American blockade is strangling the Iranian economy. And that’s when, at some point, big changes will come. The sweep of your book is almost from– well, the 20th century up until now. I’ve read the part, basically, from 1949 until now. And one of the themes there, Simon, is, West and the Western media and Western governments often misread what’s going on in the region. Is that what’s happening with the portrayal in the media of the Iran conflict that you think is being misperceived? I think at least partly. But I think there’s one rule of Middle Eastern history, which is that virtually no nostrum, no principle of Western ideology about the Middle East survives contact with the reality of the Middle East. And that is a theme that runs all the way through. And it applies, whichever ideology is fashionable in the West at that time, whether it’s imperialism or, today, the decolonialist anti-Western radicalism. Whichever you apply turns out to be wrong, because the Middle East– and this is the theme of the book. It’s called the cauldron because the Middle East is enormously complicated in its diversity and its interconnectivity. And it really defies all Western presumptions. And that’s as true now with this war as it’s always been. The fact is that the Iranian regime now is a toxic one that is trying to bully its way to control of the Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz. That can’t be allowed to happen. It also cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. But it’s also true that starting the war in February, America and Israel over oversold or overstretched their ability to bring down the regime immediately. One thing, when I covered the Trump administration point 1– 1.0, rather– when we traveled to the Middle East, one thing you would pick up, even if you were in the bubble of the White House travel pool, which I was– people in the region said Trump is very different than previous American presidents. He is hypertransactional and familial, meaning he gives power to people within his family or his tight inner circle, resembling the way many of the monarchies of the region historically operated– highly transactional and familial. Is there anything that is different, 1? 2, underappreciated, or somehow unconventionally valuable about that with Trump in the region? Well, when you speak to Arab leaders– and I’ve spoken to many Arab leaders from all different powers in writing this book and consulted them– and many of them have read pages and chapters of the book and checked it and checked them and corrected them, which is always invaluable, obviously. But many of them said, we find Trump unpredictable and erratic. But equally, we find his kind of complete directness, his realpolitik, quite refreshing after the amount of guff that we hear, we’ve heard from American presidents, I would say kind of post-Wilsonian morality and human rights humanitarianism that we’ve heard from early American presidents. And we find that strangely refreshing. But there have been times, equally, when Arab leaders have been absolutely exasperated with Trump, of course, as well. So it’s a mixture. But what you say is completely true. In some ways, his neo-czarist attitude to international affairs fits very well or should fit very well with the way that many of these Arab states are run, and especially the Gulf monarchies. In that sense, the sort of neo-czarist nature of Trumpism is something that they understand. You can listen to my full interview with Simon Sebag Montefiore on your favorite podcast platform. You’re going to want to do that. Coming up, a journalist intentionally mirrored the behaviors of a gambling addict to see how sports gambling apps would respond. Would they try to take advantage, or would they try to help him out? We’ll find out the results next here on The Takeouttaken. Welcome back to The Takeout. A new investigation into the potential risks of online gambling by ProPublica came across some pretty startling stuff. One of their reporters undertook 10 weeks of online sports betting. And he patterned his behavior to mirror the actions of someone who has a gambling problem. And he didn’t make this up. Those patterns came after he spoke with professional gamblers, recovering gambling addicts, as well as addiction specialists. And what he set out to see is, would the sports betting apps respond to this recklessness with any efforts to slow it down, create safeguards, curtail that spending? That ProPublica reporter, Jake Pearson, joins us. So the two sites, DraftKings, FanDuel, they did have some interventionary warnings to you as you went through this, Jake. But as I read your piece, the ratio of “bet more” was much higher than the “slow down.” Yeah. Obviously, the sports betting, online sports betting is ubiquitous. The ads are everywhere. Survey after survey tells us that more people are betting than ever. And the industry has presented what they call responsible gaming as the way to put some safety net system in place, sort of guardrails to, exactly as you say, keep tabs on users and make sure nobody goes off the deep end. So this experiment, this sort of reporting project, was meant to test that system, to see what would happen in real life, in sort of a controlled way, faced with somebody who was waving all the red flags of a problem, gambling based, just off the betting behavior, just off the patterns of the betting. What would they do? And time and time again, I encountered inducements and promotions to sort of keep going in the face of recklessness, interrupted here and there with pop-ups that come up on the app that check your screen time or ask if you want to set a budget. And you can flick them away. And in a couple instances, I was rewarded with promotions that would keep me doing the very thing that had sort of provoked the pop-up in the first place.
00:42:19
So for the audience’s benefit, Jake, what are the red flag behaviors? Right. So there are some telltale signs that my panel of experts pointed to me time and again. The foremost among them is something in the business called loss chasing, which is exactly as it sounds. When you start to lose, you make subsequent bets that are bigger and at longer odds to try and make up the ground that you’ve lost. It’s sort of an attempt to dig your way out of the hole. I gradually put myself on an escalation trajectory, where I increase my time on the app. I played late into the night. I upped my betting size and frequency 10x. I really got into more exotic betting products, like parlays and micro-bets. These are– it’s called the slotification, sort of like playing– the closest you can get to a slot machine on the apps. And cumulatively, all of this, 10 weeks in, eight weeks in, according to my panel, was unambiguously somebody who was having a really hard time controlling themselves with the product. How much did you lose? Well, nobody’s story is straight down. I was net loss $10,700. At one point, I was down much more. I was in the 20s. And like a good New Yorker, I went big on the Knicks, expecting them to disappoint, as they usually do. They did not, obviously. And so I won big. And my luck extended into the World Cup before I cratered back to Earth. But all my experts say that winning can actually be the most dangerous thing for a problem gambler because it gives you this sort of unearned validation of your betting strategy. And as one of my experts always says, as long as you keep playing, you’re going to give it back. If you don’t withdraw your winnings, if you keep going– it’s math, right? You will send that money back to the House. 15 seconds– was it any fun, or was it a drag? Listen, I get the appeal. It’s popular for a reason. But at a certain point, in my position, I had to get writing, and I had to stop betting. It’s always good when you have to get writing. That solves a lot of things in life– causes other problems, but it solves a lot of things. Jake Pearson, ProPublica. I appreciate it very much. Happy Tuesday, everyone. This is The Takeout, relentlessly curious, reliably civil, occasionally clever. The Daily Report coming your way next. [UPBEAT JAZZ MUSIC]