Transcript
Scott Adams (0:01)
Come on in. It's time. Well, let's check out our stocks. Tesla is down a little bit. The S&P 500 is up a little bit. Bitcoin's up nicely. All right, good start. That's one way to start the day. All right, Sus, I get my comments working. Where are you comments? We will have a show and it'll be amazing. Oh, yeah, it will be. So some of you were wondering why I had to shorten my show the other day. And I don't know the exact answer, but I think it's a reaction to some change in medication. So temporary and not important, but it would have been really hard to finish the show. All right, good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time. But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody could even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a tongue twister, which I wish I'd never written. A cup or in a glass, A tank of chalice or stein, A canteen jugger flask, A vessel of any kind, Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the joke of me at the end of the day. Thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now go. Ah, well, it's all looking good. So Elon Musk is apparently very happy with the development of his robots. Optimist. Optimus. Not optimist. No, Optimus, but ironically, which is the wrong word to use. But you won't know the difference. He's optimistic about Optimus. I guess version three is looking good and it already has Grok AI built into it for conversation purposes. So 2026, do you know what 2026 is going to look like? Oh, my God. You're going to have auto cabs, self driving Teslas everywhere. You're going to have the release of Optimus. You could have AI that's going to whatever new level it goes to by then. And what else? Basically all the big stuff seems like it's going to happen in 2026. So lots of stuff coming. Well, Bernie Sanders was on Joe Rogan's show and Bernie was talking about climate change. And Joe Rogan sort of challenged him on whether climate change is real. And he said this, he said to Bernie, did you see the Washington Post piece? Essentially, they found that we're in a cooling period and this was like a very inconvenient discovery, but they had to report the data, and kudos to them for doing that. So then he asked Jamie, his engineer, to put up a chart. And the chart showed very clearly that with or without human involvement, the temperature of the Earth has greatly fluctuated over the entire knowable period. So there are periods when it's up, periods when it's down. And so Rogan shows Sanders the Washington Post piece that you might argue destroys the entire climate change narrative. And Sandra's response was, well, I'm not sure. I didn't read that article, but you know, the scientists who are out there, I think I know. So Sanders, at the, you know, the end of his career, he can't. I don't think he'll last too much longer. He's a certain age. But imagine your entire career, one of your most important things was pursuing climate change. And then the publication which is most aligned with the left, Washington Post, gives you essentially a debunk of the thing that you spent your entire career chasing. So that would predictably cause some cognitive dissonance, which would make Bernie say stuff like, well, the Washington Post doesn't know, and what about those 97% of scientists? So it's not like he's going to change his mind, but there it is. Does it, does it feel to you like climate change is now so debunked that you don't really see stories about it? Even on CNN and msnbc, it feels like that entire narrative went away. Is that my imagination? Did anybody else notice that? I don't know if that's entirely because of Trump or just the news was too inconvenient at some point. Well, according to something called Zadokan by Ruben Andres, there's a survey that shows that Gen Z likes flex hours and part. Oh, they want. 38% of them want to have a sex at work, which I believe means remote work. And I'm saying to myself, gen Z, only 38% of them want to have sex at work. What part am I not understanding? Is there really a human being who doesn't want to have sex instead of working? Who would make that choice? Well, I could be having some sex right now and getting paid for it, but I'd rather be working. On these reports, 47% of young people say remote work has improved their sex lives even without a partner. I don't know. One of the most, let's say, inconvenient things about all the remote work is that for some number of people, it probably caused a massive masturbation problem. As in, they you know, they couldn't, they couldn't get any work done because they were looking at porn all day. You know, that happened. I don't know with what percentage, but probably a big percentage of remote workers found something else to do during the day, during zoom calls. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that, that Gilead Science has got FDA approval for an HIV vaccination that you do twice a year that they claim is nearly 100% effective in preventing HIV transmission. Now, apparently there's already a pill that does the same thing, but people are not good at remembering to take pills, so it's not as effective. But if you remember to get your twice a year shot, if you believe in vaccinations. Does anybody believe in vaccinations? Maybe it's the wrong audience. Maybe every one of you are like, we're not really sure vaccinations are even real. But the thing that I thought was interesting is, is that the Wall Street Journal said the breakthrough cracks open the door to ending the HIV pandemic. To which I said, wait a minute, HIV was still a pandemic. When was the last time you had a friend or acquaintance or coworker who got AIDS? I remember in the, was it the 80s, 80s and 90s that you. It happened all the time. So the person on the other side of my cubicle wall died of aids. People's relatives, their, their cousins or friends, everybody seemed to be, you know, dying of aids, but I don't really hear about it anymore. Is that because the pills were good enough? But apparently the Wall Street Journal says it's still a pandemic. All right. At gmc, ignorance is the furthest thing from bliss. Bliss is research, testing, testing the testing until it results in not just one truck, but a whole lineup. The 2025 GMC Sierra lineup featuring the Sierra, 1500, Heavy Duty, and EV. Because true bliss is removing every shadow from every doubt. We are professional grade. Visit gmc.com to learn more. Well, let's talk about the bomb damage assessment. The bda. I think the BDA and the TDS have merged. Have you noticed that Trump derangement syndrome and bomb damage assessment now sort of became the same topic? Let me do bomb damage assessment the way the public and maybe even all of the intelligence people in the military are doing it too. Are you ready? Now, I know what you're going to say. You're going to say, scott, you're no expert on military stuff. True. You might say, scott, you don't know anything about bomb damage assessment. And you don't even have privy to all the private information. True, true. But you want to watch something impressive, I'm going to give you the best, most accurate bomb damage assessment that you'll ever see. Better than the news, better than the military, better than Trump. Are you ready? Now, I know that's a high bar, but this will be the best bomb damage assessment. You ready? If you like Donald Trump as your president, he then the entire nuclear program was obliterated and they will not start up again for possibly decades. And they would be crazy to even try. That's if you're a supporter of Trump. If you were not a supporter of Trump or maybe you were doubting him in the run up to the ceasefire, then you would say there's no way to know if anything got destroyed. I suspect that they might be able to reconstitute their entire program in three to six months. There you go. Do you think there will be anything on the news that is better than that? No, there will not be. The one thing that you could predict with complete certainty is that there would not be agreement on how effective the bombing was. Right. There was no chance, no chance that the Democrats were going to say, well, we don't like this authoritarian dictator hit Hitler guy, but I gotta admit, he's really good at bombing away the risk of nuclear war with other countries. Was that gonna happen in. In any reality where Democrats gonna say, yeah, you know, gotta say, he really nailed it with that, you know, limited bombing run. So precise, got everything obliterated, totally obliterated. So I remember on the, you know, when the bombing was being talked about and it first happened and I made some comments on social media about how in the world could you be sure that you got everything? Because how would you know if they had something hidden that you didn't know about? How would you know if maybe they'd remove some stuff but did it cleverly so they the removal could not be detected? How would you know what's under that mountain? If they start digging, are they going to find anything left? How would you know if maybe they had, you know, various equipment for enriching uranium that hadn't been connected to, you know, their setup yet, but it's new and it was sitting there and they could just connect it. How would you know? You would not know. So your belief in the bomb damage assessment and whether it worked or did not work is entirely based on guessing and political preference. If you think we're going to get to the point where we're going to know for sure if the bombing was a huge positive success or it was a big failure. We'll never know that. There will always be two stories. One will be that it was the best thing ever, and the other will be that it didn't work. And that will never change. And that was completely predictable before we got to this point. So we've got. And basically the Dilbert filter is what I like to put on these things. So you don't have to be an expert on the military or politics to know that big organizations operate in similar ways, which is people are going to disagree about what the data is. That's just built into everything for. From climate change to bomb damage assessment. So CNN is saying, predictably, according to an early US Intelligence assessment, the US Military strikes on the nuclear program did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program. Do you think they know that? That's based on one of what will be, you know, maybe more than a dozen different assessments that might change over time. But do you really think that CNN has a source that can tell them that the core components have been spared? You know, it's possible that somebody told them that, but how would anybody really know that? It doesn't seem knowable one way or the other at this point. Iran says that their nuclear installations were badly damaged by the US According to the ap. So if Iran says badly damaged, does that mean that they can't reconstitute it in six months? Well, I don't know. What does badly damaged mean in this context? So anyway, Trump. Here's what Trump said. He said that the attacks set them back decades because they had such a bad experience. So Trump's narrative now is not just there's nothing they can do because everything's destroyed. But he's modified his narrative a little bit to even if they could, they'd be insane to do it because it worked out so poorly. And Israel has also said that if they see any nuclear development, they'll be back to bomb more. Trump says the sites that we hid in Iran were totally destroyed and everyone knows it. Do they? Does everyone know it? He says they didn't have a chance to get anything out because we acted fast. Really? There was no way to move that enriched uranium. They didn't have enough time. I'm not even sure we knew where it was in the first place, but okay. And Trump said it's very hard and very dangerous for them to remove that kind of material. Yeah, but they were in sort of a dangerous situation in general. So I don't know. P agseth Says, quote, anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the President. So you know what I have to say to Pete Egseth? Fuck you, asshole. Fuck you. I can make up my own opinion about whether or not our government is lying or accurate about bomb damage assessment. And it does not have anything to do with trying to undermine the President. When I see somebody say something like that, the facts, if you disagree on the analysis that you're trying to undermine the President, fuck you. Just fuck yourself as hard as you can with a, with a bunker buster bomb. Pxf. You know, I've not been a critic of pxf, but no, you don't get to say this. Well, you can say it's a free country, but if you tell me that my opinion of the bomb damage assessment at this stage is dependent on either trying to support or undermine the President, just fuck you. Shut the fuck up. We don't want to hear any of it. So, no, you fail. That's a fail. PXS Bad messaging This episode is brought.