Scott Adams (9:40)
Taxes and fees extra. See full terms@mintmobile.com here's something that sounds like a little nerdy story, but probably is immensely important. So MIT has announced this initiative for new manufacturing, according to MIT News. So it's an institute wide effort aiming to bolster industry and create jobs by driving innovation across vital manufacturing sectors. If you take the jargon out of it, what it really means is that MIT is going to be like doge for manufacturing. Not so much in cutting costs, although they might do that too, but rather looking at it from the bottom up and saying all right, instead of just rebuilding the old kind of manufacturing that we always did, because that's the only thing we know how to do. The geniuses at MIT are going to help, I guess, help industry design, manufacturing. That makes sense. Now, I assume it's stuff like, you know, using AI and probably whole new systems that have never been used before and 3D printing and robots and whatever else. But the only way the US is going to become a manufacturing power again with a good kind of manufacturing, you know, not the, not the low end kind of is this. So, you know, Doge really can't be underestimated because although this is not Doge and has nothing to do with Doge, it just feels like it wouldn't happen unless Doge had sort of set the standard that if you unleash your geniuses in this domain, it doesn't take long for them to fix everything. So this is a small story that I think could be one of the biggest stories in the country if things go right. So MIT is not like other places. The MIT students, they're all like big balls basically. Well, according to Futurism, some economists did a study to find out how much, how much AI is saving companies because companies are adopting AI like crazy. They, they just can't get enough of it. So apparently white collar workers are, you know, just, they're just racing to get more AI and it looks like they saved basically nothing. They analyzed 25,000 workers and the only productivity gains were 3 to 7% productivity gains and none of them translated into bigger paychecks or anything. So it looks like AI has met Dilbert. Dilbert is sort of the stand in for the bureaucracy and doing everything wrong, apparently. You can't just take a bunch of people who are a certain way and just layer AI on top of them. You can't take Dilber. Well, you can take Dilbert, but you can't take Wally and then add AI to Wally and then suddenly he's a productive employee. He's still Wally. Still Wally. So although I do think AI will eventually take jobs, it's going to be a fight. The Wallies and the pointy haired bosses are going to have to duke it out for about five years. Well, allegedly, according to Neuroscience News. Speaking of AI, new study of ChatGPT, the 4.0, it shows that it's susceptible to cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance. The AI. Now this is, you know, would be considered a, let's say a cognitive flaw in human beings. And there's a test that I remember from the book Influence Cialdini and the test was they would have people, they would just stop random people and have them write essays on topics that they did not believe were not their actual opinions. And then they would check back with them and they would have changed their opinions to what they wrote in the essay instead of what they said was their opinion just before they wrote the essay. So that would be cognitive dissonance. So they wouldn't be aware of the fact that they had persuaded themselves by writing an essay that they didn't believe in. And then you wait a few months and suddenly they believed in their own essay. So they did the same experiment with AI and found out that AI would change its opinion because it wrote a opinion earlier that was not its actual opinion. So they did something with, you know, pro or con Putin, and they got the AI to have cognitive dissonance. Well, I don't know if that's fixable, because if AI is based on the patterns of human beings, how do you fix that? Because that is a pattern of human beings. It's a very distinct pattern. So we'll see. Meanwhile, Jake Tapper is now, he was on Stephen A. Smith's podcast, and Jake Tapper, he was calling out Letitia James and Alvin Bragg for being lawfare prosecutors who said they were going to go after Trump before they had any particular crimes they were going to go after. And so Jake says it's problematic when prosecutors run on pledges to go after a politician, and the media largely let it slide. The media? You mean cnn? And he says there was a degree to which it was tolerated by the media writ large. That would be him. It's the weirdest thing to watch Jake Tapper do a book tour, which is very successful. I think his book is number one. People are saying good things about the book, but he's essentially confessing some of the biggest flaws in the mainstream media of which he was a part. And he's not saying he wasn't part of it. He's not trying to say it was other people. He's saying it was him. And it's weirdly disarming the fact that he called Lara Trump and apologized to her in person. You want to get mad at him and say, oh, what about Lara Trump? And then you find out he called her personally and apologized, and you're like, ah, well, I'm still a little bit mad. And then you want to be mad at him for not calling out the lawfare of, you know, Letitia James. And then he calls it out. And I'm like, yeah, but what about. Okay, I guess you just said that. It's very disarming. And he's totally getting away with it. And it's an amazing thing to watch. Jake Tapper also told Stephen Danny Smith that none of the sources he talked to about Biden's declining brain, he said none of them showed any remorse. None of them, I guess they didn't write books. If you write a book, you have to show some remorse or people be too mad at you. But I'm not surprised because they all thought they were working on the side of good. Oh, we're the good people. Speaking of good, Paramount, as you know, is in a legal battle with Trump over the fact that their CBS News had edited a Kamala interview and they're offering $15 million to settle Trump's lawsuit. But Trump's team wants 25 million. Now, the interesting thing about it is that I guess Trump's administration has control over whether Paramount does a big merger that they want to do. So they've got about, I don't know, they might have a billion dollars on the line with the merger. So the difference between 15 million and 25 probably is not that big a difference if it's the only way to get the billion dollar merger going. So I don't approve of using that kind of government leverage, but there it is. So I'd be surprised if they don't get their 25 million just, you know, just to get it off the plate. Anyway, so former according to msnbc. So MSNBC had a guest on who was a former Biden pardon attorney. I didn't even know there was a pardon attorney, but there was one, Liz Oyer. And while she was on, she accused the Trump administration of accepting a million dollar donation from a family member of someone who got pardoned. But since there's no evidence that that happened, even the MSNBC host very quickly said, well, attended a fundraiser, but there's no evidence that they actually donated anything. So it makes me wonder if the Paramount lawsuit and wasn't there also a CNN lawsuit? It makes me wonder if Trump has finally broken through, where if they know there's a lie that somebody says in their ear, you better correct that. Kind of like the View, you know, the ladies of the View have to keep doing these legal statements because their producer talks in their ear and says, ah, well, there's no evidence of that, you better say that's not true. So maybe something good is happening from all these lawsuits. According to Fox News, the State Department and Marco Rubio say they're going to be aggressively getting rid of. I won't say getting rid of, but the revoking visas for Chinese students Aggressively revoking visas. I don't know how you do it aggressively. Do you snarl, give me your visa. I'm revoking it aggressively. This does make me wonder how much safer the country will be if we stop educating foreign leaders, potential foreign leaders in America. I don't know, are we going to be better off or worse off? I guess we'll find out. Trump said he would consider pardons. He's not saying he would do it, but he's recently been made aware of the situation where. Do you remember there was a, a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, but the FBI was sort of behind the plot and convinced people to do it? Well, maybe they didn't have to try too hard, because I guess at least one of the men, you know, was pretty actively suggesting doing it. And so he's going to look at that. But I don't think this one is the cleanest one. It's not like the January 6th stuff that I thought was, you know, except for the most violent people, it was a pretty clean one, you know, but we'll see. We'll see if Trump wants to test his powers. Well, there's a hoax that the reason that Trump is going after Harvard so hard is because Barron once applied there and was turned down. But Melania issued a statement which is kind of rare, that she would even get involved, and she said Barron did not apply to Harvard. So that's a hoax. Barron never applied to Harvard. So the Biden auto pen scandal, you know, when that first broke, I thought it was going to be sort of a nothing. I thought, okay, there's a log that will show, you know, who signed why. It'll show that the Biden approved it. You know, it'll just sort of go away. But it turns out that there is no log whatsoever of who authorized or who used the auto patent. Now, can you think of anything more ridiculous than that? Think of all the rules. Think of all the rules and regulations and laws that the government does. And maybe the single most important thing they could do is keep a record of who used the autopen and who authorized it. And apparently that's never been a requirement. So there exists no record whatsoever of who used the auto pen for what. Representative Comer is going to look into it, and he might have even Jill Biden and Hunter Biden and Jean Pierre, Corinne, John Pierre. So all the usual people might be called in. We don't know if they'll go, but they might be called. But in on the same topic, there's a project Veritas undercover video of David Hogg saying that it was a well known, what do you call it, a an open secret that the real power behind the throne was Jill Biden's chief of staff, Anthony Bernal. And I don't know if that means that he was behind the auto pen, but the, the reveal is if you wondered who had the most power behind the curtain. According to David Hogg, other people might have different opinions, but according to him, it was Jill Biden's chief of staff. Now, does that ring true to you when you hear that it was Jill Biden's chief of staff? Does that sound like something that maybe is true? Because it totally sounds true to me. Can't you imagine that if Joe Biden was mentally incompetent, that Jill Biden's opinion probably counted for a lot of because she could get him to say whatever she needed him to say. But since she was not maybe as involved in politics in the detail level, it seems like she could have been easily influenced by her own chief of staff. So when I first heard that story, I thought to myself, that totally makes sense. If you just know the ordinary dynamics of people, the wife would have the most control over the husband, but the chief of staff would have the most control over the wife because she would take his opinion as being somewhat correct and authoritative. So maybe, maybe we know more. And then the post Millennial is is writing about how there's a watchdog group, an environmental watchdog group, that says there's no evidence that Biden knew he was signing any climate executive orders. Now, there's no evidence, partly because there's no log of who signed what or why, but they're pointing out that Biden ordered it, but he never really talked about it. And although that's not proof, it's definitely a head scratcher, isn't it? Can you imagine Trump signing an executive order for something that's really expensive? There's just billions of dollars involved. And can you imagine Trump never mentioning it? You can't. Of course he would mention it because he'd be happy about what he did. It would be a big deal, and it would be one of the many things he told everybody about as soon as he thought of it and as soon as he did it. But when you see that Biden may have auto penned the approval for some environmental things that were really, really expensive and never mentioned it, well, it could be because he was mentally incompetent. So even if he agreed with it and even if he approved it, they were a little afraid of putting in front of the public. So it's not proof, but it is a really good question. Did he have any knowledge that it happened? So that'll be one of the things that maybe Representative Comer can find out. Well, according to a guest on the Benny Johnson's podcast, Susan Crabtree has a scoop. And she says that that bag of cocaine that Dan Bonino says are going to look into more closely, that the bag of cocaine had some DNA on it. Oh, DNA. And that would mean that they know exactly who touched it, at least one person. So they might already know whose it was. I suppose if the fingerprint was somebody that they didn't have any prior experience with, they couldn't really be sure. But if it's Hunter Biden's DNA just to pick a random person, well, then they would know who it belonged to. But there's also part of the story that the Secret Service destroyed the evidence, meaning the bag of cocaine. But then separately, I saw that that would be the normal process for the Secret Service, because the Secret Service is not an investigative Department of Justice kind of an entity. And I saw somebody say that their ordinary process, if they had found a bag of drugs that they knew belonged to the family, they wouldn't take it and give it back to the family. But it's also not their job to get the family arrested. So they would just quietly destroy it. And that would actually be their. Their known process. I like that process because you can't really trust your own Secret Service if you think they're looking for crimes that you're doing and they're going to put you away. But if they find a bag of cocaine, what are they going to do with it? They can't store it forever. They can't give it to law enforcement if they're trying to protect you. So it makes perfect sense to me that the Secret Service would destroy it. I don't have any problem with that at all. So I don't know if that would make any difference in their investigation since they already got the DNA. Meanwhile, the University of North Carolina. I saw this on a Cory DeAngelis post. There's an undercover video of the administrator at the University of North Carolina bragging about how they just are pretending that they're getting rid of dei, but all they're doing is changing the names and continuing on and doing it cleverly undercover. And apparently the person on the video said they're just going to finesse the language and they're going to do, quote, work that is covert. And then when they were confronted with the fact that they had just been recorded, the university provost tried to run away. But contrasting to that, where it definitely looks like they were trying to break the law and continue to do dei, mit, again in the news for a different thing, has closed its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Office. Now, listen to the language that MIT uses and you tell me if you think they're just changing the language and doing it anyway, or are they serious about getting rid of it, because maybe they didn't like it and maybe it's illegal. So this is what MIT said as part of their getting rid of dei. They said, MIT is in the talent business. Our success depends on attracting exceptionally talented people of every background from across the country and around the world, and making sure everyone at MIT feels welcome, blah, blah, blah, so they can do their both. When you start with mit, as in the talent business, that's a pretty good signal that you're serious about looking at talent over dei. Now, they did say they want people from all over the world, so that's sort of waving their hand at diversity. But they say, first, we're in the talent business. That sounds a little more serious. So although you have to watch all the universities to see if they are serious, I'm going to say they sound legit. So I'm going to say MIT might be trying to do it right. We don't know, but they might be. According to the Financial Times, if you lived in the uk, there's a one in three chance that your phone would be stolen. I guess Phone thefts have nearly doubled and now 29% of UK adults have had one of their phones stolen. I wouldn't even go into public if one in three people had their phone stolen. I would never leave the house. So here's my advice to the citizens of the uk. Get out. Get out. Run. Run. I don't know where you're going to go, but you probably want to go somewhere where there's not a 1 in 3 chance your phone gets stolen just because you left the house. Well, Trump's tariffs were, of course, stopped by a court, the Court of International Trade. It ruled, I guess, yesterday that Trump does not have the authority to do these tariffs. Now, the most, the most surprising part about this story, I never even heard of the Court of International Trade. How many courts are there? How many courts have some kind of jurisdiction over everything Trump does with an executive order? But I guess the Supreme Court will hear this next. But allegedly, this Court of International Trade seems to have some kind of power over the process. So I guess we'll wait for that. Some say that's why the stock market is up. Maybe. Well, according to News Nation, there's a company called Impossible Metals that is sort of a robot machine that can pick up rare earth minerals from the bottom of the ocean. So I guess there are these well known places where these potato sized rocks that are just like just laying there in the bottom and you don't want to use a bulldozer scoop because you'd be ruining the environment. So they've got this cool piece of equipment that they've already built that just goes there and sort of picks up each rock. It can tell which rocks it wants to pick up and just sort of picks them up as it goes. And that's really cool. So we're getting closer and closer to being able to produce our own rare earth minerals in the United States and nearby. Let's see what else is going on. So you know how people like me and Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ron Johnson and Rand Paul were all complaining that the budget process was not including the Doge cuts? Well, people like me did not understand the complexity of the budgeting process. But Speaker Johnson says, whoa, whoa, whoa, don't worry, that's coming up. Now. You remember what I asked? I was demanding, at least on X when I was responding to Stephen Miller. I wasn't demanding a specific outcome. I was demanding that our politicians tell us when we should see some kind of cuts that would be Doge related or at least get rid of the, get rid of the deficit a little bit. And I guess Speaker Johnson heard that, not necessarily from me, but he saw a lot of pushback from Republicans and conservatives. And according to the New York Post, he's giving us an answer. He says his plan is to enshrine into law the cuts from Doge. But the process would be, it's going to get codified in the normal appropriations process in the fall and through a recession package that helps you claw back money. So everybody understand that you've got an appropriations process and you also have a rescission process. So I went to GROK and I said, can you explain to me GROK all the different parts of the budget process? Like how many different things are there that are some word I've never heard before that mean, well, this is some part of the government process? Here's what GROK said. I won't tell you what all these are, but just so you know how many different things are, you've got budget resolution, you've got a reconciliation bill, you've got an appropriation bill, you've got a continuing resolution, you've got supplemental appropriations bills, you've got recession re. Recession bills, you've got a debt ceiling bill, you've got an authorization bill. And you need to know the distinction between mandatory and discretionary spending. And you have to know, as a filibuster, where you're going to have to get your 60 votes and when you can get it with 50. And they all have their own little rules and process and the rest. So when Speaker Johnson says he's going to do something in the fall to codify it, I don't know. I don't understand any of that stuff. And I've got a feeling that even the members of Congress just barely understand it. Like Thomas Massie probably fully understands it. And then if you said to me, all right, name somebody else who fully understands the budget process, I would say, did I mention Thomas Massie? Yes, you did. Okay, well. Well, there's Thomas Massie and then there's. Well, I'm done. Yeah, it's. It's a mess. But none of it's going to matter because Google just announced that a quantum machine with fewer than a million qubits could break basically RSA encryption in under a week. So your Bitcoin and your bank accounts are completely vulnerable, and there's nothing you can do about it. So under the current trend, and I don't know what would change it, we're just sort of casually being told that all of our money will be stolen. Oh, I don't know, sometime in the next year or two. And there just won't be anything we can do about it because the quantum computers will be able to break any encryption. Great, great. Could you throw us a bone and at least say, oh, but our AI will stop that from happening? Will it? I don't know. Will it? I'm a little bit worried about this quantum encryption stuff. Meanwhile, the Tate brothers are in the UK. They've got 21 charges against them, Andrew and his brother Tristan, 21 charges from. Including rape and human trafficking. Do you think that's all real? Probably, because the things that they've talked about publicly would, you know, be pretty close to. Pretty close to evidence for some of these crimes. So I don't know. I think it's a combination of. There's probably something political going on, but at the same time, there may be enough evidence that they're in real trouble. So we'll see. Well, Israel has actually deployed into real action and used the iron beam laser. It's called. So for a cost of something like $5 per shot, it can take a missile or a drone out of the sky. So the expensive way to do it was to fire a rocket at the rocket. So your, your defense against the rocket would be as expensive or more expensive than the rockets that are coming in. But they just changed that. So now they can take your rocket out of the air for five bucks and then just shoot another one so they don't have to wait to recharge. They basically can just shoot all day, $5 a rocket. And then they've confirmed that they killed the second Sinwar. Remember there was a head of Hamas whose name was Sinwar. Well, apparently his brother took over and so they've killed the brother. So they're two for two on killing Sinwar and they've just confirmed that they got the second Sinwar. There's some more news on Israel because Israel's heating up. Something might be getting ready to happen there in terms of Iran, but the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is not happy with his own government and he is essentially accusing them of war crimes. And he says that they're involved in a war of annihilation with indiscriminate, limitless, cruel killing of civilians in Gaza. Now when I report this stuff, I remind you, you're not hearing my opinion. I'm just telling you what's happening. So as I've said before, whoever has the power is going to be accused of war crimes. Will it, will they be doing war crimes? It's not up to me to decide. You know, you all know the situation. If one side is hiding among its civilians, there's going to be more civilians killed. There's just no way around it. So I'm not saying it's good or bad. It's not for me to judge it. I'm just saying that from a self defense perspective, Israel is pursuing its self interest and that self interest is not really good for the civilians of Gaza. But it's not for me to, it's not for me to judge. I'm just reporting. Meanwhile, this is interesting. CNN had the, I think the most recently freed Israeli hostage who said that his Hamas captors were terrified of Trump and they wanted Kamala Harris to be elected president. But as soon as Trump got into office, he says that the captors were treated better because they didn't want to get Trump mad. And now that's interesting. Quote, everything changed once Trump was back in headlines. When he became president, the way they treated us changed and they got more food, they were treated better. They stopped cursing at him, stopped spitting on them. Now that, that's pretty amazing. Anyway, Trump has confirmed that he told Netanyahu of Israel to hold off on attacking Iran because he thinks he is close enough to some kind of a deal that that would ruin his negotiations. I don't believe that there's going to be any kind of a deal, but it looks like they're playing good cop, bad cop. So it looks like Trump is trying to act like he's the one just negotiating. Oh, I think we can get a deal here. I don't want anybody to die. Meanwhile, Israel is reportedly getting ready for unilateral strikes. Doing the strikes on at least one place, if not more, without the United States. In other words, attacking Iran without the United States. Now you might say to yourself, how popular would that be? Well, the Rasmussen polling people have an answer for you. 57% of US voters would support military action by the U. S To destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program. A. A solid majority of Americans are in favor of direct American military action against Iran. Does that surprise you? That kind of surprises me. I thought it would be less than 50%, but put it all together. Oh, and then one other fact. The leaders of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar have told Trump that they oppose military strikes. So those would be the countries that are most likely to be part of, let's say, the Abraham Accords, the ones we want to be on our side. So they're against it, and Trump's against it, and much of the world's against it, but weirdly, the American public doesn't seem so against it. So if 57% would be of American voters would be in favor of America being part of a military attack, don't you think they'd be even more in favor of Israel doing it without us? Because they presumably get something like the same benefits, but the US Would be less culpable. So here's what it looks like. It looks like they're setting up a good cop, bad cop situation. If I had to predict, I would predict that Israel is going to do the attack unilaterally and Trump is going to be really, really, really mad. And Saudi Arabia and UAE and Qatar, or Qatar, if you prefer, are going to be really, really, really mad, but also a little bit happy if the attack is successful and it takes out Iran's capability to make a bomb in two weeks, which is about where they are. I've got a feeling that something is, is brewing here that looks like not exactly what we're going to be told. So that's my prediction. My prediction is the US Will not be involved in an attack and will be opposed to it, but that Israel, if they know that 50% of US voters would be in favor of the US doing the attack, I feel like they think they could get away with it and that there would just be a lot of yelling and a lot of unhappy people. But then we would say something like, what, you warmongering criminals, what did you just do? You just started a war with Iran, but how'd it go? Oh, pretty well. We destroyed their entire nuclear infrastructure and didn't really kill any civilians because we warned them it was going to disappear. So they, you know, got the people out of there. And then you'd be like, yeah, but, you know, that's terrible, but you got rid of their entire nuclear program. Yes, okay, I can live with that. Now. That's not my opinion. I'm just. I'm just telling you that if that's what they're planning to do, it does look like it might work. So I'm not in favor of it, because if Iran decides, it's really just the United States playing coy, but the United States is just as guilty because Israel wouldn't have done it unless we at least winked at him or something. So there's a big risk. So I'm not in favor of it. But if you said, could they get away with it? Maybe. Maybe they could. And looking at Ukraine, Trump was asked the question, do you still believe that Putin actually wants to end the war? And Trump said, I'll let you know in about two weeks. Would you like to know now? Because they could just ask me. They don't really have to wait two weeks. No, Putin does not want to end the war. You don't have to wait two weeks. So I don't know what Trump's going to do in two weeks or why you really even need to wait, but I guess he's going to let the process play out a little bit. I assume there's some threats going on, meaning that Trump has sent the threat that if you don't negotiate, you're not going to be able to sell your oil anywhere and none of your oligarchs will be able to travel anywhere interesting stuff like that. So maybe this two weeks are just so Trump's threats can sink in a little bit. Maybe. Maybe that's what's going on. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's what I've got for you today. And I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers. I hope you enjoyed listening to it. Same time tomorrow? We'll see you all. If you're on YouTube or rumble or X and locals coming at you in 30 seconds, we'll be private in 30 seconds.
