emily: i'm emily chang in san francisco, and this is "bloomberg technology." coming up in the next hour, trump defiant. the president says he is at zero risk of being removed from office by the 25th amendment. meantime, lawmakers are considering impeaching him for a second time. we will have the very latest from washington. plus, twitter purge. the social network deletes more than 70,000 accounts tied to qanon.

days after banning the president for good. we will speak to the star of the netflix hit "the social dilemma." and tracking mutations. the high-stakes work to reveal covid mutations by the biotech firm illumina. it may be truly illuminating indeed. we will talk to the ceo about just how dangerous the new strain is. all of that in a moment. first, talking about the markets. u.s. stocks moving higher as investors mulled the prospect of an economic recovery and the rollout of a vaccine. i want to get the full picture with bloomberg's ed ludlow. ed: choppy trading in equity markets, but we ended the day in the green across all major u.s. indices. if there was one area of underperformance, it was technology stocks. the nasdaq 100 off a little bit by about .1%. if you look at some of the points moves, microsoft really dragging that down along with comcast and google.

there were some gains, notably in intel, that's having a good day on the back of the announcement that the ces conference is going on virtually. speaking of semi conductors, how often have we had this conversation. the philadelphia semiconductor index, continuing outperformance above the s&p 500. again, a real focus today on small caps. the russell 2000 up by 1.8%, another fresh record high for that index. as investors put money into small caps. the nyse faang plus index was up by 0.8%, but only three names in there actually in positive territory. very dependent on two big movers. tesla up by 4.7% and baidu up around 9%. lots of energy behind ev and that tesla story. now we see new names. scoops this week around different names including lucid motors, looking at accessing the

public market. but again, the market is pretty sanguine about everything going on. we are in the depths of a pandemic. lots of focus on a vaccine and lots of focus on why we are hitting fresh record highs when there is so much going on in the world. emily: right. so much focus still also on what is happening in washington and what is happening with facebook and twitter after they banned the president. facebook indefinitely, twitter permanently. both company shares continued to fall today. what is driving that? ed: pressure continuing on social media stocks. facebook shares down about 2.2%. third straight day of declines. twitter down by 2.4%. 6th straight day of declines. it is the worst streak for chewed -- for twitter in two years. the change now is that wall street and analysts are looking more closely at what twitter's decision to remove president trump from the platform means for its overall business.

one analysts suggesting that it could result in a decrease of 6 million to 9 million monthly u.s. users. it affects that business from that decision. but snap rising for a fourth straight session. it seems immune from some of the pressures other social media stocks have been under. one reason is a lot of focus and optimism around advertising. the president speaking today, no direct rebuke of social media companies. but the president saying that free speech is under assault. emily: right, and of course, republican lawmakers, some of them, have said they will focus on banning section 230 for good. ed ludlow, thank you so much for that update. as ed mentioned, president trump saying he is at zero risk of being removed from office after encouraging supporters who went on to attack the u.s. capitol last week. but, he suggested president-elect joe biden could be. trump did not elaborate on how

this might be used against biden. but let's discuss. we are joined now by a professor of political science at iona college. thank you so much for joining us. we are getting reporting from the "new york times" that republican leader mitch mcconnell has actually said he is pleased that the democrats are moving to impeach the president, and that he believes the president committed impeachable offenses. what do you make of this report? >> fascinating report out of the "new york times" just moments ago that mitch mcconnell has privately told people that he believes the president committed an impeachable offense. and of course we saw his wife resign her cabinet position a few days ago. in response to what happened. and of course mitch mcconnell, let's not forget, also lost his majority leadership in the senate, something that we also understand he blames president trump for.

so i am not surprised that he believes the president committed an impeachable offense. we also heard he discussed with joe biden whether there was a prospect of the senate both holding an impeachment trial and looking at and confirming his nominees as he takes office. we have not heard back as to whether that would be possible. but i believe that mitch mcconnell sees this as a way to , as he said, purge the president from the party. this is somebody who, even before all that happened on wednesday, said he did not go along with his colleagues on the republican side who were trying to decertify the election. emily: now, we have a quote from the president speaking at the border earlier today. let's take a listen to part of what he had to say. pres. trump: before we begin, i would like to say that free speech is under assault like never before. the 25th amendment is zero risk

to me but will come back to haunt joe biden and the biden administration. as the expression goes, be careful what you wish for. emily: what is your reaction to that? guest: of course the president is reported to be furious that he was kicked off the social media platforms. he has made that clear in his first remarks since wednesday. as you and ed were talking about, saying that free speech is under assault. he of course has called a long time for the revocation of section 230. and of course, we may see some of that as we get into the new congress coming from the democratic side. it was very odd to hear him talk about the fact that he is not going to be subject to the 25th ammendment. we are also hearing that he may have spoken to mike pence last night. that seems to be unconfirmed.

so maybe he understands that mike pence is not going to invoke that as the democrats would like him to. and a veiled threat to the biden administration that joe biden could be subject to that. as you mentioned, i am not sure how, but it seems to be a veiled threat. that leaves us to democrats will vote on this resolution for the 25th amendment. that will not happen, as far as we know. then they will move tomorrow and probably tomorrow evening on a vote on this one article of impeachment which, as we were just discussing, apparently has at least some support from mitch mcconnell, and potentially we are also hearing maybe we will see some support on the republican side, maybe as much as a handful of republicans in the house or more who may support it. emily: does this reporting from the "new york times" that mitch mcconnell supports the democrats moving forward with impeachment, does that change anything? you know, what do you expect the last few days leading up to january 20 will actually look

like? guest: i think we will get a vote out of the house and i think we will have at least a handful of republicans go along with the impeachment vote. it will move to the senate. we still do not have a sign as to when they will take it up. at this point it looks to be after january 20. and we still don't know if there will be enough republicans in the senate to support a conviction. of course, he will have left office by then. but there is discussion as to whether you can hold a trial after somebody leaves office. some people think you can. so, we may see that. but i am not convinced we will see enough republicans go along with that in the trial. so, but we will probably see that trial go forward. emily: what do you think the president will do next? i mean, do you see him starting his own social network? a broadcast network? and can he do that without even at least some sort of institutional republican support?

guest: very, very tough for him to do. as you mentioned, institutional republican support. also support from banks. deutsche bank moving away from him. signature bank and others. very, very tough for him to do. he is incredibly isolated at this point. now, obviously, things can change. but this is a man who will leave office facing significant legal jeopardy, at least at the state level, if not the federal level. again, we may need to look for a pardon in the coming days. so he has got legal jeopardy. he has also got financial jeopardy. he owes a good deal of money. and it does not look like he has got institutional support at this point, in my view, to do what i think he could have done prior to wednesday, which is to start, as you mentioned, a social media platform or some other media platform. i think that is increasingly tough for him at this point. i can't imagine he could do it, at least immediately. i think he is going to have to lay low and address his financial and his legal challenges that he is going to

face on january 21. emily: all right, well, appreciate you trying to map out the next few days for us. still a lot of uncertainty, and of course we will be watching what happens in washington. jeannie sean gino, author of "american democracy in crisis." thank you so much for stopping by. coming up, twitter has purged tens of thousands of qanon accounts in the wake of a deadly riot. that deadly riot at the u.s. capitol. stick with us for more of that conversation. this is bloomberg. ♪ is bloomberg. ♪

emily: twitter has permanently suspended more than 70,000 accounts dedicated to sharing qanon-associated content.

this is the latest example of a major tech platform ratcheting up enforcement in the wake of that deadly riot in washington last week. joining us now, kurt wagner, who covers facebook and twitter for us. kurt, what is the significance of these qanon accounts getting banned? we know that facebook and twitter have been trying to ban more accounts like this. but this seems like a sizable number. kurt: it is. 70,000 is, you know, that's a lot of people, or a lot of accounts. i think this comes back to what happened last week at the capital. obviously, there were a number of protesters that were linked to qanon. there was a lot of discussion online linked to qanon and the protests, or the riots. so i think this is really twitter trying to protect itself, really, and prevent this from happening again. i think there is discussion that there could be more riots in the inauguration, or in d.c. in the

weeks leading up to the inauguration. i really think this is just an extension of things that had happened last week and, as you pointed out, both facebook and twitter have already said qanon should not really be allowed on their platform. so this is furthering those policies. emily: twitter shares have been down, now two days in a row. obviously, their most popular user is gone. a lot of people certainly followed president trump. but why do you think that is? kurt: it is funny, because we were looking into whether twitter's business might be hurt by the end of president trump's term. right? like, is the fact that he is no longer president going to hurt business? at the time, the feeling was, no, that he would still be on twitter, at the very least he would still be kind of opining and people would slowly drift back into other topics that really mattered to them. but that did not really take into account this idea that trump would be off twitter entirely. and i think the fact that he is

now gone, and there is a lot of speculation that many of his followers would follow him to a parler or something else, is spooking investors that perhaps user growth or engagement would go down. we do not know if that will really be the case. my guess is that people are just reacting to this and trying to figure out, could this hurt twitter's business in the long haul? emily: speaking of parler, how easy will it be for parler to find another web hosting platform now that amazon web services have cut them off? are they going to be able to do that? kurt: i think the delay kind of tells you everything. right? the fact that they have not found anything yet, that the site is still down. i was just checking right before we got on. that, to me, is quite telling, that they are having difficulty doing this. i do not think it will disappear forever. i think that there are always corners of the internet where there is someone willing to play host to these kind of

discussions. but we have never seen a coordinated kind of pushback like this from tech companies, either. this is very unique, very unprecedented, and the fact that we are now coming up on multiple days where they have not had the service up and running, i think it is telling that they are having a tougher time then maybe we all even expected. emily: now, how would the president go about starting a new social network if he wanted to? kurt: oh my gosh. i mean, this is a really interesting question. because the thing that makes these social networks so valuable is that everyone is already there. right? when you go to facebook, the reason you maybe hold on to your account is you have colleagues, college friends, families. it is a communal gathering place in a way. and that is just hard to build from scratch. that is why we have never really seen a competitor to facebook up until this point. right? it is a network. so trump is certainly stronger than most in terms of having a following.

and if he shows up somewhere, people will go there. but the question is, are they going to just be there to hear him, or will there be more of a community around that? i think that is going to be really tough to replicate that facebook and twitter have a clear, distinct advantage on. emily: right, will they just be talking to themselves? all right. bloomberg's kurt wagner. kurt, thank you very much for your reporting. we will continue to follow. coming up, the new covid-19 strain continues to surface in countries around the world. we are going to speak to the ceo of illumina, a company trying to identify cases of the new variant here in america. that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪ so you're a small business, or a big one. you were thriving, but then... oh. ah. okay. plan, pivot.

how do you bounce back? you don't, you bounce forward, with serious and reliable internet. powered by the largest gig speed network in america. but is it secure? sure it's secure. and even if the power goes down, your connection doesn't. so how do i do this? you don't do this. we do this, together. bounce forward, with comcast business.

emily: the new strain of

covid-19 has affected many more people in the u.k. than the outbreak last year. in ontario, canada, the government declared a second provincial emergency as cases accelerate and a new more transmissible variant has been identified. joining us now to discuss, francis desouza, ceo of illumina. the company has found 51 cases of the virus mutated in the united states. obviously, 51 is a lot, and we can assume that there are a lot more. what traits are you seeing of the new variant? how much more transmissible or dangerous is it? francis: you are absolutely right, emily. we found 51 cases here but it is clear there are many more in the u.s. it is a more transmissible variant of the virus. the thing that we need to do here in the u.s. is a lot more surveillance and so we can identify how many cases there are, but also new strains that are emerging. we are seeing a new strain

called the south african strain. that's b-1351. although it has been identified in the u.k., we still have not identified it here in the u.s. emily: now, your work involves genetic sequencing. and i wonder, it has been suggested that the united states especially is dangerously blind to these new covid mutations, that we need a nationwide system that involves genetic sequencing , genetic testing in order to identify and fight this. i mean, at this point, is something like that realistic? how can we get a handle on it? francis: yeah. one of the things that has become absolutely clear over the past year is that we need as a global community to set up a global pathogen surveillance system. it is clear that to identify if an outbreak is happening and then to identify the source of that outbreak, we need to be surveilling our environment. and then, we need to identify how this virus is transmitting and mutating as it moves around

geographically. and that is true whether it is a coronavirus outbreak like we are dealing with right now, but it is also true for things like antimicrobial resistance or bioterrorist attacks. so what we need is to set up this network of this surveillance system to see which pathogens are emerging and then how they are moving around. that is important not just to know what is happening, but also to drive policy decisions like, you know, should we be shutting down travel to certain regions? all of that needs to be informed by data coming out of this surveillance system. we did not have any, and we need to put one together. emily: and at this point, how do you see the pandemic continuing to unfold? i wonder if we are going to be sort of living with this kind of tracking and greater awareness of the dangers in viruses and the world around us forever. francis: yeah. so what we are going to do right now is we are going to put together as quickly as we can the surveillance capacity we

need to try to deal with the current pandemic. and so, you have, for example, the u.k. leading the way in terms of doing large-scale sequencing and genomic surveillance to understand how the virus is mutating in the u.k. environment. you are seeing the government of australia committed to a national system for covid surveillance. we are ramping up capacity here in the u.s. more slowly. so we will put together the surveillance we need right now to get us through this pandemic. but to your point, this is going to have to become part of a national infrastructure and part of a global community where we share this data so that we can watch for either the reemergence of this coronavirus or future pathogens. emily: now, your work involves cancer treatment, reproductive health, agriculture. where do you expect we are going to see the biggest breakthroughs with the help of sequencing technology in the short-term? we have about a minute left. francis: we have a few areas.

one, genomics will play an essential role in dealing with this pandemic. one, in terms of surveillance but, two, you are seeing the emergence of genomic driven vaccines like the mrna vaccines from moderna and pfizer-biontech. you will see these emerge partly accelerated by the pandemic. you will also see big impacts in cancer treatment. we are seeing the emergence of these precision oncology therapies. and using genomics to match cancer patients to the right therapy that will be most effective for them. and then in the middle of this year, a company called grail, a company we are in the middle of acquiring, will launch the world's first blood test to identify early stage cancer across 50 types of cancer. that is truly going to be groundbreaking. emily: we will continue to follow all of this groundbreaking work. illumina ceo francis desouza, thank you so much for sharing that with us. coming up, tristan harris, star of the netflix film "the social

dilemma," who also runs the center for humane technology, joins us to discuss his take. that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: this is "bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang in san francisco. president trump's account has been deleted from twitter permanently. and from facebook indefinitely. , the fbi is bracing for more potential violence at state capitals across the country before inauguration day. the star of the social dilemma is calling for people to wake up from the digital spell that has been cast by the social network to avoid more disasters like this in the future. he is with me now.

thank you so much for taking the time to join us. obviously you have been talking about this for years, and now it is at the very epicenter of a global conversation. what is your take on the social network banning the president? was it the right move, or was it too late? >> this is a really hard place to be in. i think the main thing the social dilemma was trying to communicate as a film not just that there's individual accounts that can insight violence, but the business model by being incentivized has put each of us into a narrower and now are or channel of reality. it produces self reinforcing cults. we just saw that on display on january 6. in the film it said that short-term what they were worried about was civil war. a lot of people thought it was too extreme a statement to make.

i think we are seeing that escalation being the natural progression of the business model. not just individual actors like donald trump. now we are in this difficult position where we have a handful of tech ceos that can make unilateral, nondemocratic decisions about digital impeachment. you can digitally impeach the president and you just have to get employees of those companies to believe and put pressure on the ceos and eventually that is what will happen. i think those who are rightly concerned about that need to ask about the alternative of simply allowing this machine to continue without any kind of digital articles of impeachment. there are conditions in which people violate norms or incite violence. if anything, what this moment calls for is almost a constitutional convention for the digital world so that people don't see this as one power grab by one political party over another.

we should come to terms with the fact that we need a digital constitution for how to deal with this new situation. emily: would you say we are on the brink of civil war? or are we already in the middle of the digital civil war being waged on line exploded at the capitol? tristan: there is a saying in racecar driving that you don't put your attention on where you don't want to go. this is meant to be a warning. you can make the argument that this has been a moment of escalation, the deplatforming of what people voted for is a very significant act. we need to come together to say what is the constitution? what are the articles of impeachment for the digital world?

in my senate testimony two years ago, private interest starts eating up public institutions. just as i said in the social dilemma, we lose all the protections for saturday morning. now you have a private company governing what used to be public interest, which is children's television. when you have facebook setting up election advertising, what does it mean for it to be fair? when the private meets the public, it deregulates the public. we lose those protections and we don't have accountability. we don't have a constitution for

what we want it to be. whether were talking about digital impeachment or the safe norms of morality. anyone can post anything and it can be spread to billions of people. we decouple that power from responsibility. i can say anything i want without accountability that is a broken system. we need some kind of constitutional convention to reconcile this. emily: the folks who disagree with the actions facebook and twitter have taken say you can't say anything, because look what happened to president trump's account. one entrepreneur has been arguing strongly against the decisions that facebook and twitter have made. on one of his tweets in response to some and pointing out that they are private company and they can decide who to do business with or not. saying you can instantly get distribution to millions. if not, you can stand in the street yelling like a lunatic. what do you say to the folks who say were walking a dangerous line between free speech and censorship? tristan: i think we all know

there is no clean answer here for free speech versus censorship conversations. the conversation we been on for two years now calling it the difference between freedom of speech and exponential audiences. i can go to a store and buy knives and i don't need educational training about how to use them. but when i get an ak-47, there's a background check and training and all sorts of things. that's because it's a more dangerous weapon. the mistake is to call this -- we have to have a conversation about selective enforcement. you can't have them making a standard and only enforcing it in some areas and not others. the full dichotomy between free speech versus censorship as opposed to what are the rules that make up our digital nation? this is a digital country now.

we are a democracy with a digital brain implant. it has driven us crazy. we have to have some kind of democratic governance so that brain implant doesn't drive us all crazy, which is what it does. emily: what are your biggest fears right now? you point out it's not just about the president. he has plenty of followers who are still on these platforms and they are angry. what are you most afraid of at this moment of the social dilemma? tristan: i'm simply afraid of this driving even more polarization. to 71 million people in this country, it looks like a digital act of war has happened. i worry about what response that

will generate if it is not immediately pull back into a democratic conversation. what is the way to govern the digital world that we are all participating in? we don't elect who works at twitter or facebook. we need to have some kind of democratic process. then you get into conversations about the global process. what would be democratically elected to govern the u.s. sphere is different from other countries. this is really just a need for accelerating the conversation about what do humane and democratic platforms that will become our digital environment, what are the means for them to serve the public interest? they cannot have a business model based on manipulating our attention. emily: assuming that business model is not going to change before inauguration day, what do

you think happens in a post trump world? what do the social networks look like, and how do they change? tristan: i think we are all finding this out. many people have been talking for a long time about deplatforming trump and people are wondering what will the consequences be? it's a very complex system. it's led to much more polarization, monitoring the reaction of the left and right to all this. i worry about conflicts. how do we actually not take an action that only drives up a heightened counter response? there is too much unilateral reaction that drives up the level of escalation on the other side. i'm looking at models for de-escalation. that's what we need to be looking at. i don't think anybody knows what exactly happened. with this business model, unless

you wake up from this 10-year trance, there is a digital psychosis in which our minds are divided against themselves. we have a common ground about while we lost common grounds. emily: you've offered many possible social solutions, a digital constitution, a change in the business model. we always appreciate your very reasoned and thoughtful views here. thank you so much. coming up, how people get their news, by the way, is changing. putting a lot of power into the hands of technology. we will talk to one new platform about the future of public media, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: when it comes to news, accurate reporting has never been more important. with political passions sweeping the nation on all sides, any have looked to alternative means to get the most up-to-date information. i'm joined by chris best. thank you so much for joining us. i know a few prominent journalists who have left their respectful news organizations to start their own newsletter, their own audiences. talk to us about what you have to offer readers and journalists in such a tumultuous time in the news business. chris: we have a subscription publishing platform for independent writers.

we are hearing a lot about how kind of the business model that pays for a lot of the things that we read online is one of the root causes of the distorted information environment that we find ourselves in. that's kind of the same reason we started substack. if you're going to have everyone paid by advertising, how could a better system work? we offer an alternative business model where readers subscribe directly to writers they trust and they pay them directly. they hire and fire the writers that they trust, and is kind of an alternate ecosystem to support social media as we know it. emily: what kind of resources do you provide? you don't provide editing or moderation or advice, right? chris: we do provide some advice.

we have an all-in-one software. if you are an independent writer that's going out by yourself, you can use the tool that publish email and puts everything in the right format. it makes the entire process really easy. we say if you are a writer, come and type in the box. you can build your own media empire. we have some additional services that layer on top of that. we have some legal advice. we don't provide editors, but people can hire their own editors and that works really well. emily: if you are raising journalistic and individual voices that are subject to the same fact checking and sometimes bureaucracy and red tape you find at traditional news organizations, are you concerned about leading to increasing polarization at a time when our country is so polarized? fake news and misinformation and

click bait are so rampant. chris: we think about that stuff a lot. we think the substack model helps make that a lot better. on substack, the thing i have to work towards his earning and keeping the trust of the people who are subscribing. i don't have an incentive to be deliberately polarizing or provoking or playing into the outrage game. i have to convince my readers that i am a thoughtful person that is worth reading. that difference in incentives leads to much better work. emily: you would think at a time like this that more readers might be flocking to authoritative new sources. we are in a big transition and how we get our news and what we want to see and read, as president trump presumably leaves office.

his tweets have driven a lot of the news cycle. i wonder where you think the news industry and substack in it, how does the news business evolve over the next years? chris: i think a lot of people have lost faith in what they used to think of as authoritative new sources. a lot of places have been playing the same unfortunate game of maximizing engagement and outrage in all these things. i think people are hungry for something different. they are hungry for something they believe they can trust and they are increasingly -- they don't know where to find that. places like substack that let writers go independent and have their own platform, their own voice, is a very powerful solution to that. emily: what are the kind of popular rising trends on substack?

the most popular genres, for example, local news has been kind of dying a slow death. i wonder what void you think substack will fill. chris: there is a rich diversity of people on substack. it tends to be people that have a point of view that people trust and want to hear more from. we're seeing a lot of politics. the dispatches kind of a center-right, independent -- they are building a whole media business on top of substack. filling a void with a trustworthy voice that helps you make sense of all the craziness that is going on is definitely something we see a lot of demand for right now. emily: we will continue to follow your progress. chris best, founder and ceo of

substack. coming up, would you pay more to reduce your uber ride's carbon footprint? we will look at one of the new green initiatives hitting the ride-hailing app, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: uber is joining the pandemic fight, partnering with moderna to provide vaccine information to riders and even help schedule rides to appointments.

they will send in-app messages in the u.s. and expect to expand the program to more of uber's 78 million users across the globe in coming months. more news from uber. would you pay extra to know -- you are hailing a greener ride? they have a myriad of initiatives aimed at their goal of selecting a more environmentally friendly ride with the addition of a one dollar surcharge. adam, thank you so much for joining us. if i pay one dollar extra for my uber, my green uber, what does that mean? adam: let's set the context of why you would pay a dollar. the goal is to build a fully zero emission multimodal platform by 2040. we decided during the covid pandemic that we need more clean air and zero emissions.

we committed to being part of the solution for a green recovery. we have to build a better normal. it was about taking action to make more, low emission products available to riders and uber green is our first step. second is empowering the drivers. we found the key to strength is giving drivers affordable access to electric vehicles. it's a critical component. the third part is it cannot just be about uber green and electric vehicles, it has to be multimodal. we've doubled down on her partnerships with transit agencies, and the last part is transparency. i cannot tell you where we are going unless i can tell you where we are.

we need to see where our emissions are today and how we get to zero tomorrow. that is where we started and the context of where uber green sits. emily: i'm sure you've done a lot of research on this. how likely do you think consumers and riders are to pay that extra dollar? adam: back to the drivers, the drivers face substantial barriers to access to electric vehicles. where we started in the u.s. and canada, for just a dollar more you get a substantially lower emission ride in the dryer -- in a hybrid and the driver immediately gets $.50 of that dollar. the other $.50 goes into a fund that other drivers can access. it's not a one-size-fits-all

approach. in europe we see a different policy context and the governments are more bullish on ev's. a couple of key cities like london and paris have particularly bullish policies. we have a clean air plan that charge all riders. so were taking a bold approach that generates more clean and electric vehicles. emily: we've got about a minute left. you're also adding more multimodal transportation features, more public transportation features, helping people use multiple forms of transportation including uber from point a to point b. could that potentially undermine uber? adam: our riders are looking for more options beyond the car they own or don't own.

as we think about the long-term goals of european car ownership, ridesharing and on-demand solutions are complementary components and we are excited to be expanding our options and public transportation today. emily: we will catch up in nine years with you at the very latest, adam, as you work toward zero emissions by 2040. thanks so much for joining us. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang in san francisco. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> the following is a paid program. the opinions and views expressed do not reflect those of bloomberg lp, its affiliates, or its employees. >> the following is a paid presentation brought to you by rare collectibles tv. ♪ >> in 1915, the united states was in the middle of world war i. woodrow wilson was president. in the world of numismatics, the mint director decided it was time to replace the barber half-dollar that had been