Founders Fund launches game show starring Sam Altman, Palmer Luckey, and other tech elites | TechCrunch
Have you ever had the desire to see Sam Altman and Palmer Luckey square off over a moderately suspenseful card game? If so, you are in luck.
Silicon Valley’s leaders are rushing to embrace the power of media for the purposes of marketing and political capital. Now, in a sign of the times, Founders Fund, the venture capital firm co-founded by Peter Thiel, has launched its own game show.
MAFIA the GAME, will apparently be an ongoing thing, where prominent tech luminaries get together and face off over a game of cards (the show is named after the party-game favorite).
The spectacle is moderated by Pirate Wires editor Mike Solana (who is also the chief marketing officer at Founders Fund). The debut episode includes a who’s who of players, Altman, Luckey, Bryan Johnson, the famed biohacker who will (according to him) live forever, and Moxie Marlinspike, the founder of encrypted chat app Signal.
“I’m so f*cking bored with VC content,” Solana told Newcomer, which originally reported the show’s existence. “There has to be a more interesting way to get to know someone, and I think that this is a way more interesting way to get to know someone.”
TechCrunch reached out to Founders Fund for more information on the program.
In many ways, having a reality-TV-esque platform is just good business these days. The internet has turned the world into a population of chronic media consumers, and the average American spends around 2.5 hours on social media per day. Much of that time is spent scrolling through an endless flood of advertising-laced memes and videos.
In the modern era, the road to power and influence is paved by infotainment.
Companies and executives have sought to take advantage of this new reality in different ways. OpenAI recently raised some eyebrows when it procured TBPN, the buzzy founder-led podcast. Meanwhile, a number of tech’s most prominent players have leveraged virality to their advantage. Johnson, for instance, has managed to grow his following through a very active (and quite bizarre) social media presence. Elon Musk, meanwhile, has also managed to leverage his public persona to go viral (although arguments could be made that his online presence has sometimes hurt rather than helped his businesses).
Have you ever had the desire to see Sam Altman and Palmer Luckey square off over a moderately suspenseful card game? If so, you are in luck.
Silicon Valley’s leaders are rushing to embrace the power of media for the purposes of marketing and political capital. Now, in a sign of the times, Founders Fund, the venture capital firm co-founded by Peter Thiel, has launched its own game show.
MAFIA the GAME, will apparently be an ongoing thing, where prominent tech luminaries get together and face off over a game of cards (the show is named after the party-game favorite).
The spectacle is moderated by Pirate Wires editor Mike Solana (who is also the chief marketing officer at Founders Fund). The debut episode includes a who’s who of players, Altman, Luckey, Bryan Johnson, the famed biohacker who will (according to him) live forever, and Moxie Marlinspike, the founder of encrypted chat app Signal.
“I’m so f*cking bored with VC content,” Solana told Newcomer, which originally reported the show’s existence. “There has to be a more interesting way to get to know someone, and I think that this is a way more interesting way to get to know someone.”
TechCrunch reached out to Founders Fund for more information on the program.
In many ways, having a reality-TV-esque platform is just good business these days. The internet has turned the world into a population of chronic media consumers, and the average American spends around 2.5 hours on social media per day. Much of that time is spent scrolling through an endless flood of advertising-laced memes and videos.
In the modern era, the road to power and influence is paved by infotainment.
Companies and executives have sought to take advantage of this new reality in different ways. OpenAI recently raised some eyebrows when it procured TBPN, the buzzy founder-led podcast. Meanwhile, a number of tech’s most prominent players have leveraged virality to their advantage. Johnson, for instance, has managed to grow his following through a very active (and quite bizarre) social media presence. Elon Musk, meanwhile, has also managed to leverage his public persona to go viral (although arguments could be made that his online presence has sometimes hurt rather than helped his businesses).
This trend has also spread to the startup space, where people like Cluely CEO Chungin “Roy” Lee have demonstrated the power of being a one-man viral hype machine.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
The US Department of Commerce, which oversees the Census Bureau, is circulating a proposed rule that would cease the collection of demographic data on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people and prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2030 census, according to documents viewed by WIRED.
The decision could have far-reaching implications for federal funding, particularly in states where there are substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as on immigrant communities across the country.
The proposed rule, which is being circulated across government agencies for review, says the census will eliminate questions about race and sexual orientation “to protect from any distortions created from the inclusion of personal questions.” The memo also states that “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with ‘usual residence’ in the United States.”
This would likely require the reintroduction of a census question about a respondent’s citizenship. During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Republicans attempted to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The effort was struck down by the Supreme Court, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court’s then-larger liberal bloc on the grounds that the justification for adding the question was “contrived.” The decision did not, though, find that citizenship questions are inherently unconstitutional.
The Department of Commerce did not reply to requests for comment.
“This is about the Voting Rights Act,” says Danah Boyd, a professor at Cornell University who studies the census, referencing the landmark voter protection legislation that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year. Eliminating the collection of these data, she says, would make it difficult to make basic assessments, like whether a congressional district is predominantly made of minorities.
“If we don’t know certain things, we can’t challenge them politically,” says Boyd. “If we don’t know that certain peoples live in a particular geography, we can’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s some massive inequality.’”
Republicans and the Trump administration have long taken aim at the census. More recently, members of the Trump administration have attacked a little-known statistical method called “differential privacy,” which is used to prevent census data from being used to reidentify individual respondents, claiming that it makes the results inaccurate. In August 2025, Republican representative August Pfluger made another attempt to reintroduce a citizenship question on the census, sponsoring a bill called the COUNT Act, and in October, Republican senator Jim Banks of Indiana published a letter to Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, writing, “There is a credible argument that the framers of the Constitution designed the Census to cover lawful inhabitants and not those who are present illegally.”
Census questions are set between two and three years in advance of the actual survey, based on priorities set by the administration. The data from the census inform everything from the apportionment of congressional seats to federal funding that is allocated based on the size of a population.
An employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the press, tells WIRED that “many HHS programs use Census data to appropriate funding. Removing undocumented individuals from the census will cause localities with high numbers of those populations to lose critical federal funding.”
The employee says that removal of racial categories could specifically impact Native populations, which sometimes receive specialized funding. “Some programs use the ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ category from the Census to make determinations of grants set aside for Tribal entities,” they say.
The US Department of Commerce, which oversees the Census Bureau, is circulating a proposed rule that would cease the collection of demographic data on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people and prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2030 census, according to documents viewed by WIRED.
The decision could have far-reaching implications for federal funding, particularly in states where there are substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as on immigrant communities across the country.
The proposed rule, which is being circulated across government agencies for review, says the census will eliminate questions about race and sexual orientation “to protect from any distortions created from the inclusion of personal questions.” The memo also states that “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with ‘usual residence’ in the United States.”
This would likely require the reintroduction of a census question about a respondent’s citizenship. During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Republicans attempted to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The effort was struck down by the Supreme Court, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court’s then-larger liberal bloc on the grounds that the justification for adding the question was “contrived.” The decision did not, though, find that citizenship questions are inherently unconstitutional.
The Department of Commerce did not reply to requests for comment.
“This is about the Voting Rights Act,” says Danah Boyd, a professor at Cornell University who studies the census, referencing the landmark voter protection legislation that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year. Eliminating the collection of these data, she says, would make it difficult to make basic assessments, like whether a congressional district is predominantly made of minorities.
“If we don’t know certain things, we can’t challenge them politically,” says Boyd. “If we don’t know that certain peoples live in a particular geography, we can’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s some massive inequality.’”
Republicans and the Trump administration have long taken aim at the census. More recently, members of the Trump administration have attacked a little-known statistical method called “differential privacy,” which is used to prevent census data from being used to reidentify individual respondents, claiming that it makes the results inaccurate. In August 2025, Republican representative August Pfluger made another attempt to reintroduce a citizenship question on the census, sponsoring a bill called the COUNT Act, and in October, Republican senator Jim Banks of Indiana published a letter to Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, writing, “There is a credible argument that the framers of the Constitution designed the Census to cover lawful inhabitants and not those who are present illegally.”
Census questions are set between two and three years in advance of the actual survey, based on priorities set by the administration. The data from the census inform everything from the apportionment of congressional seats to federal funding that is allocated based on the size of a population.
An employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the press, tells WIRED that “many HHS programs use Census data to appropriate funding. Removing undocumented individuals from the census will cause localities with high numbers of those populations to lose critical federal funding.”
The employee says that removal of racial categories could specifically impact Native populations, which sometimes receive specialized funding. “Some programs use the ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ category from the Census to make determinations of grants set aside for Tribal entities,” they say.
#Census #Proposal #Stop #Counting #Undocumented #Immigrantsand #Ignore #Race #Sexual #Orientationus census,immigration,undocumented immigrants,race,lgbtq+">Census Proposal Would Stop Counting Undocumented Immigrants—and Ignore Race and Sexual Orientation
The US Department of Commerce, which oversees the Census Bureau, is circulating a proposed rule that would cease the collection of demographic data on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people and prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2030 census, according to documents viewed by WIRED.
The decision could have far-reaching implications for federal funding, particularly in states where there are substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as on immigrant communities across the country.
The proposed rule, which is being circulated across government agencies for review, says the census will eliminate questions about race and sexual orientation “to protect from any distortions created from the inclusion of personal questions.” The memo also states that “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with ‘usual residence’ in the United States.”
This would likely require the reintroduction of a census question about a respondent’s citizenship. During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Republicans attempted to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The effort was struck down by the Supreme Court, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court’s then-larger liberal bloc on the grounds that the justification for adding the question was “contrived.” The decision did not, though, find that citizenship questions are inherently unconstitutional.
The Department of Commerce did not reply to requests for comment.
“This is about the Voting Rights Act,” says Danah Boyd, a professor at Cornell University who studies the census, referencing the landmark voter protection legislation that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year. Eliminating the collection of these data, she says, would make it difficult to make basic assessments, like whether a congressional district is predominantly made of minorities.
“If we don’t know certain things, we can’t challenge them politically,” says Boyd. “If we don’t know that certain peoples live in a particular geography, we can’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s some massive inequality.’”
Republicans and the Trump administration have long taken aim at the census. More recently, members of the Trump administration have attacked a little-known statistical method called “differential privacy,” which is used to prevent census data from being used to reidentify individual respondents, claiming that it makes the results inaccurate. In August 2025, Republican representative August Pfluger made another attempt to reintroduce a citizenship question on the census, sponsoring a bill called the COUNT Act, and in October, Republican senator Jim Banks of Indiana published a letter to Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, writing, “There is a credible argument that the framers of the Constitution designed the Census to cover lawful inhabitants and not those who are present illegally.”
Census questions are set between two and three years in advance of the actual survey, based on priorities set by the administration. The data from the census inform everything from the apportionment of congressional seats to federal funding that is allocated based on the size of a population.
An employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the press, tells WIRED that “many HHS programs use Census data to appropriate funding. Removing undocumented individuals from the census will cause localities with high numbers of those populations to lose critical federal funding.”
The employee says that removal of racial categories could specifically impact Native populations, which sometimes receive specialized funding. “Some programs use the ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ category from the Census to make determinations of grants set aside for Tribal entities,” they say.
According to the announcement, X stopped accepting new Revenue Sharing enrollments immediately and will wind the program down entirely after Sept. 7. Creators currently enrolled will receive three final payouts — two on the standard schedule in mid- and late August, and a final payment around Sept. 11 covering earnings through the cutoff date. Starting Sept. 8, existing Revenue Sharing members can apply for the new program if they meet its eligibility requirements, the company said.
Per X’s announcement, the new program ties earnings to “qualified impressions” a creator’s original content receives, rather than the advertising-revenue split that defined the old system. Qualified impressions must come from unique, verified Premium subscribers viewing at least half of a post on the Home Timeline; impressions that are duplicated, paid, promoted, or fraudulent don’t count.
Mashable Light Speed
To qualify, X says creators must be at least 18, live in an eligible country, hold a Personal or Business account in good standing, subscribe to a paid X tier, and have at least 500 verified followers, along with 500,000 Home Timeline impressions from verified users over the prior 90 days. Those requirements must be maintained continuously to keep receiving payouts, according to the announcement.
X’s guidelines lean heavily on defining what counts as “original.” Per the company’s post, content that is copied, reuploaded without authorship, generated through automated means, or reposted with only minor edits — such as captions, watermarks, or basic text overlays — won’t qualify. Users can earn from reposting others’ material only if they add substantive commentary, analysis, or creative editing. So, simply describing what’s already happening in a post doesn’t meet the bar.
As noted in Engadget’s report on the news, X adjusted its Revenue Sharing formula in March to weight engagement more heavily toward a creator’s home region. That shift, they wrote, likely followed revelations that a number of popular accounts posting pro-Trump content and US-focused commentary were not actually based in the United States.
Whether the new Original Content Rewards Program carries over a similar regional weighting is not yet clear.
According to the announcement, X stopped accepting new Revenue Sharing enrollments immediately and will wind the program down entirely after Sept. 7. Creators currently enrolled will receive three final payouts — two on the standard schedule in mid- and late August, and a final payment around Sept. 11 covering earnings through the cutoff date. Starting Sept. 8, existing Revenue Sharing members can apply for the new program if they meet its eligibility requirements, the company said.
Per X’s announcement, the new program ties earnings to “qualified impressions” a creator’s original content receives, rather than the advertising-revenue split that defined the old system. Qualified impressions must come from unique, verified Premium subscribers viewing at least half of a post on the Home Timeline; impressions that are duplicated, paid, promoted, or fraudulent don’t count.
Mashable Light Speed
To qualify, X says creators must be at least 18, live in an eligible country, hold a Personal or Business account in good standing, subscribe to a paid X tier, and have at least 500 verified followers, along with 500,000 Home Timeline impressions from verified users over the prior 90 days. Those requirements must be maintained continuously to keep receiving payouts, according to the announcement.
X’s guidelines lean heavily on defining what counts as “original.” Per the company’s post, content that is copied, reuploaded without authorship, generated through automated means, or reposted with only minor edits — such as captions, watermarks, or basic text overlays — won’t qualify. Users can earn from reposting others’ material only if they add substantive commentary, analysis, or creative editing. So, simply describing what’s already happening in a post doesn’t meet the bar.
As noted in Engadget’s report on the news, X adjusted its Revenue Sharing formula in March to weight engagement more heavily toward a creator’s home region. That shift, they wrote, likely followed revelations that a number of popular accounts posting pro-Trump content and US-focused commentary were not actually based in the United States.
Whether the new Original Content Rewards Program carries over a similar regional weighting is not yet clear.
#retires #revenue #sharing #Original #Content #Rewards #program">X retires revenue sharing for new ‘Original Content Rewards’ program
X is overhauling how it pays creators, phasing out its long-running Revenue Sharing program in favor of a new system called the Original Content Rewards Program.
The platform’s Creators account announced the change in a post, saying the program is meant to “reward creators who bring original ideas, expertise, reporting, creativity, and commentary to X.”
According to the announcement, X stopped accepting new Revenue Sharing enrollments immediately and will wind the program down entirely after Sept. 7. Creators currently enrolled will receive three final payouts — two on the standard schedule in mid- and late August, and a final payment around Sept. 11 covering earnings through the cutoff date. Starting Sept. 8, existing Revenue Sharing members can apply for the new program if they meet its eligibility requirements, the company said.
Per X’s announcement, the new program ties earnings to “qualified impressions” a creator’s original content receives, rather than the advertising-revenue split that defined the old system. Qualified impressions must come from unique, verified Premium subscribers viewing at least half of a post on the Home Timeline; impressions that are duplicated, paid, promoted, or fraudulent don’t count.
Mashable Light Speed
To qualify, X says creators must be at least 18, live in an eligible country, hold a Personal or Business account in good standing, subscribe to a paid X tier, and have at least 500 verified followers, along with 500,000 Home Timeline impressions from verified users over the prior 90 days. Those requirements must be maintained continuously to keep receiving payouts, according to the announcement.
X’s guidelines lean heavily on defining what counts as “original.” Per the company’s post, content that is copied, reuploaded without authorship, generated through automated means, or reposted with only minor edits — such as captions, watermarks, or basic text overlays — won’t qualify. Users can earn from reposting others’ material only if they add substantive commentary, analysis, or creative editing. So, simply describing what’s already happening in a post doesn’t meet the bar.
As noted in Engadget’s report on the news, X adjusted its Revenue Sharing formula in March to weight engagement more heavily toward a creator’s home region. That shift, they wrote, likely followed revelations that a number of popular accounts posting pro-Trump content and US-focused commentary were not actually based in the United States.
Whether the new Original Content Rewards Program carries over a similar regional weighting is not yet clear.
Buc-ee’s became something of a viralsensation during the World Cup, but it has a troubling history of suing small gas stations and convenience stores. On a recent episode of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver literally begged the company to sue him for selling merch featuring his squirrel mascot, Mr. Nutterbutter, with branding that reads “Buc-Off.” But Buc-ee’s has so far declined to take the bait, instead targeting yet another small business that lacks the deep pockets and legal team of HBO.
According to WDTN, an NBC affiliate in Miami Valley, Ohio, Buc-ee’s opened its first locations in the state earlier this year. And now it’s targeting established local businesses through trademark suits. Beaver’s Mini Mart in Beavercreek has been a staple of the city for “decades.” But Buc-ee’s is claiming that this long-running store’s beaver logo could confuse customers. WDTN says:
In the suit, filed days ago, Buc-ee’s alleges that the Mini Mart’s cartoon beaver mascot is too similar to their own, with its “wide eyes and a smile” that also “uses red as a predominant color,” and could cause confusion.
Oliver and Mr. Nutterbutter have already fended off one lawsuit, with Bob Murray, a mining executive, having unsuccessfully sued for defamation following a 2017 episode about the coal industry.
Buc-ee’s became something of a viralsensation during the World Cup, but it has a troubling history of suing small gas stations and convenience stores. On a recent episode of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver literally begged the company to sue him for selling merch featuring his squirrel mascot, Mr. Nutterbutter, with branding that reads “Buc-Off.” But Buc-ee’s has so far declined to take the bait, instead targeting yet another small business that lacks the deep pockets and legal team of HBO.
According to WDTN, an NBC affiliate in Miami Valley, Ohio, Buc-ee’s opened its first locations in the state earlier this year. And now it’s targeting established local businesses through trademark suits. Beaver’s Mini Mart in Beavercreek has been a staple of the city for “decades.” But Buc-ee’s is claiming that this long-running store’s beaver logo could confuse customers. WDTN says:
In the suit, filed days ago, Buc-ee’s alleges that the Mini Mart’s cartoon beaver mascot is too similar to their own, with its “wide eyes and a smile” that also “uses red as a predominant color,” and could cause confusion.
Oliver and Mr. Nutterbutter have already fended off one lawsuit, with Bob Murray, a mining executive, having unsuccessfully sued for defamation following a 2017 episode about the coal industry.
#Bucees #dodges #John #Oliver #sue #small #businessBusiness,Culture,Entertainment,Internet Culture,Law,News,Policy,TV Shows">Buc-ee’s dodges John Oliver to sue another small business
Buc-ee’s became something of a viralsensation during the World Cup, but it has a troubling history of suing small gas stations and convenience stores. On a recent episode of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver literally begged the company to sue him for selling merch featuring his squirrel mascot, Mr. Nutterbutter, with branding that reads “Buc-Off.” But Buc-ee’s has so far declined to take the bait, instead targeting yet another small business that lacks the deep pockets and legal team of HBO.
According to WDTN, an NBC affiliate in Miami Valley, Ohio, Buc-ee’s opened its first locations in the state earlier this year. And now it’s targeting established local businesses through trademark suits. Beaver’s Mini Mart in Beavercreek has been a staple of the city for “decades.” But Buc-ee’s is claiming that this long-running store’s beaver logo could confuse customers. WDTN says:
In the suit, filed days ago, Buc-ee’s alleges that the Mini Mart’s cartoon beaver mascot is too similar to their own, with its “wide eyes and a smile” that also “uses red as a predominant color,” and could cause confusion.
Oliver and Mr. Nutterbutter have already fended off one lawsuit, with Bob Murray, a mining executive, having unsuccessfully sued for defamation following a 2017 episode about the coal industry.
![Founders Fund launches game show starring Sam Altman, Palmer Luckey, and other tech elites | TechCrunch
Have you ever had the desire to see Sam Altman and Palmer Luckey square off over a moderately suspenseful card game? If so, you are in luck.
Silicon Valley’s leaders are rushing to embrace the power of media for the purposes of marketing and political capital. Now, in a sign of the times, Founders Fund, the venture capital firm co-founded by Peter Thiel, has launched its own game show.
MAFIA the GAME, will apparently be an ongoing thing, where prominent tech luminaries get together and face off over a game of cards (the show is named after the party-game favorite).
The spectacle is moderated by Pirate Wires editor Mike Solana (who is also the chief marketing officer at Founders Fund). The debut episode includes a who’s who of players, Altman, Luckey, Bryan Johnson, the famed biohacker who will (according to him) live forever, and Moxie Marlinspike, the founder of encrypted chat app Signal.
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDCwQe7P8T0[/embed]
“I’m so f*cking bored with VC content,” Solana told Newcomer, which originally reported the show’s existence. “There has to be a more interesting way to get to know someone, and I think that this is a way more interesting way to get to know someone.”
TechCrunch reached out to Founders Fund for more information on the program.
In many ways, having a reality-TV-esque platform is just good business these days. The internet has turned the world into a population of chronic media consumers, and the average American spends around 2.5 hours on social media per day. Much of that time is spent scrolling through an endless flood of advertising-laced memes and videos.
In the modern era, the road to power and influence is paved by infotainment.
Companies and executives have sought to take advantage of this new reality in different ways. OpenAI recently raised some eyebrows when it procured TBPN, the buzzy founder-led podcast. Meanwhile, a number of tech’s most prominent players have leveraged virality to their advantage. Johnson, for instance, has managed to grow his following through a very active (and quite bizarre) social media presence. Elon Musk, meanwhile, has also managed to leverage his public persona to go viral (although arguments could be made that his online presence has sometimes hurt rather than helped his businesses).
This trend has also spread to the startup space, where people like Cluely CEO Chungin “Roy” Lee have demonstrated the power of being a one-man viral hype machine.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#Founders #Fund #launches #game #show #starring #Sam #Altman #Palmer #Luckey #tech #elites #TechCrunchbryan johnson,Founders Fund,media,Palmer Luckey,sam altman](https://i0.wp.com/techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/GettyImages-2271655123.jpg?resize=1200%2C787&ssl=1 "Founders Fund launches game show starring Sam Altman, Palmer Luckey, and other tech elites | TechCrunch
Have you ever had the desire to see Sam Altman and Palmer Luckey square off over a moderately suspenseful card game? If so, you are in luck.
Silicon Valley’s leaders are rushing to embrace the power of media for the purposes of marketing and political capital. Now, in a sign of the times, Founders Fund, the venture capital firm co-founded by Peter Thiel, has launched its own game show.
MAFIA the GAME, will apparently be an ongoing thing, where prominent tech luminaries get together and face off over a game of cards (the show is named after the party-game favorite).
The spectacle is moderated by Pirate Wires editor Mike Solana (who is also the chief marketing officer at Founders Fund). The debut episode includes a who’s who of players, Altman, Luckey, Bryan Johnson, the famed biohacker who will (according to him) live forever, and Moxie Marlinspike, the founder of encrypted chat app Signal.
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDCwQe7P8T0[/embed]
“I’m so f*cking bored with VC content,” Solana told Newcomer, which originally reported the show’s existence. “There has to be a more interesting way to get to know someone, and I think that this is a way more interesting way to get to know someone.”
TechCrunch reached out to Founders Fund for more information on the program.
In many ways, having a reality-TV-esque platform is just good business these days. The internet has turned the world into a population of chronic media consumers, and the average American spends around 2.5 hours on social media per day. Much of that time is spent scrolling through an endless flood of advertising-laced memes and videos.
In the modern era, the road to power and influence is paved by infotainment.
Companies and executives have sought to take advantage of this new reality in different ways. OpenAI recently raised some eyebrows when it procured TBPN, the buzzy founder-led podcast. Meanwhile, a number of tech’s most prominent players have leveraged virality to their advantage. Johnson, for instance, has managed to grow his following through a very active (and quite bizarre) social media presence. Elon Musk, meanwhile, has also managed to leverage his public persona to go viral (although arguments could be made that his online presence has sometimes hurt rather than helped his businesses).
This trend has also spread to the startup space, where people like Cluely CEO Chungin “Roy” Lee have demonstrated the power of being a one-man viral hype machine.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#Founders #Fund #launches #game #show #starring #Sam #Altman #Palmer #Luckey #tech #elites #TechCrunchbryan johnson,Founders Fund,media,Palmer Luckey,sam altman")
![Census Proposal Would Stop Counting Undocumented Immigrants—and Ignore Race and Sexual OrientationThe US Department of Commerce, which oversees the Census Bureau, is circulating a proposed rule that would cease the collection of demographic data on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people and prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2030 census, according to documents viewed by WIRED.The decision could have far-reaching implications for federal funding, particularly in states where there are substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as on immigrant communities across the country.The proposed rule, which is being circulated across government agencies for review, says the census will eliminate questions about race and sexual orientation “to protect from any distortions created from the inclusion of personal questions.” The memo also states that “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with ‘usual residence’ in the United States.”This would likely require the reintroduction of a census question about a respondent’s citizenship. During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Republicans attempted to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The effort was struck down by the Supreme Court, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court’s then-larger liberal bloc on the grounds that the justification for adding the question was “contrived.” The decision did not, though, find that citizenship questions are inherently unconstitutional.The Department of Commerce did not reply to requests for comment.“This is about the Voting Rights Act,” says Danah Boyd, a professor at Cornell University who studies the census, referencing the landmark voter protection legislation that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year. Eliminating the collection of these data, she says, would make it difficult to make basic assessments, like whether a congressional district is predominantly made of minorities.“If we don’t know certain things, we can’t challenge them politically,” says Boyd. “If we don’t know that certain peoples live in a particular geography, we can’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s some massive inequality.’”Republicans and the Trump administration have long taken aim at the census. More recently, members of the Trump administration have attacked a little-known statistical method called “differential privacy,” which is used to prevent census data from being used to reidentify individual respondents, claiming that it makes the results inaccurate. In August 2025, Republican representative August Pfluger made another attempt to reintroduce a citizenship question on the census, sponsoring a bill called the COUNT Act, and in October, Republican senator Jim Banks of Indiana published a letter to Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, writing, “There is a credible argument that the framers of the Constitution designed the Census to cover lawful inhabitants and not those who are present illegally.”Census questions are set between two and three years in advance of the actual survey, based on priorities set by the administration. The data from the census inform everything from the apportionment of congressional seats to federal funding that is allocated based on the size of a population.An employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the press, tells WIRED that “many HHS programs use Census data to appropriate funding. Removing undocumented individuals from the census will cause localities with high numbers of those populations to lose critical federal funding.”The employee says that removal of racial categories could specifically impact Native populations, which sometimes receive specialized funding. “Some programs use the ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ category from the Census to make determinations of grants set aside for Tribal entities,” they say.#Census #Proposal #Stop #Counting #Undocumented #Immigrantsand #Ignore #Race #Sexual #Orientationus census,immigration,undocumented immigrants,race,lgbtq+](https://i0.wp.com/media.wired.com/photos/6a7630b55d2ebc1c5247b509/191:100/w_1280,c_limit/GettyImages-157580450-edited.jpg?ssl=1 "Census Proposal Would Stop Counting Undocumented Immigrants—and Ignore Race and Sexual OrientationThe US Department of Commerce, which oversees the Census Bureau, is circulating a proposed rule that would cease the collection of demographic data on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people and prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2030 census, according to documents viewed by WIRED.The decision could have far-reaching implications for federal funding, particularly in states where there are substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as on immigrant communities across the country.The proposed rule, which is being circulated across government agencies for review, says the census will eliminate questions about race and sexual orientation “to protect from any distortions created from the inclusion of personal questions.” The memo also states that “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with ‘usual residence’ in the United States.”This would likely require the reintroduction of a census question about a respondent’s citizenship. During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Republicans attempted to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The effort was struck down by the Supreme Court, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court’s then-larger liberal bloc on the grounds that the justification for adding the question was “contrived.” The decision did not, though, find that citizenship questions are inherently unconstitutional.The Department of Commerce did not reply to requests for comment.“This is about the Voting Rights Act,” says Danah Boyd, a professor at Cornell University who studies the census, referencing the landmark voter protection legislation that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year. Eliminating the collection of these data, she says, would make it difficult to make basic assessments, like whether a congressional district is predominantly made of minorities.“If we don’t know certain things, we can’t challenge them politically,” says Boyd. “If we don’t know that certain peoples live in a particular geography, we can’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s some massive inequality.’”Republicans and the Trump administration have long taken aim at the census. More recently, members of the Trump administration have attacked a little-known statistical method called “differential privacy,” which is used to prevent census data from being used to reidentify individual respondents, claiming that it makes the results inaccurate. In August 2025, Republican representative August Pfluger made another attempt to reintroduce a citizenship question on the census, sponsoring a bill called the COUNT Act, and in October, Republican senator Jim Banks of Indiana published a letter to Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, writing, “There is a credible argument that the framers of the Constitution designed the Census to cover lawful inhabitants and not those who are present illegally.”Census questions are set between two and three years in advance of the actual survey, based on priorities set by the administration. The data from the census inform everything from the apportionment of congressional seats to federal funding that is allocated based on the size of a population.An employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the press, tells WIRED that “many HHS programs use Census data to appropriate funding. Removing undocumented individuals from the census will cause localities with high numbers of those populations to lose critical federal funding.”The employee says that removal of racial categories could specifically impact Native populations, which sometimes receive specialized funding. “Some programs use the ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ category from the Census to make determinations of grants set aside for Tribal entities,” they say.#Census #Proposal #Stop #Counting #Undocumented #Immigrantsand #Ignore #Race #Sexual #Orientationus census,immigration,undocumented immigrants,race,lgbtq+")
Post Comment