Ryan Reynolds (32:02)

Running a business comes with a lot of what ifs. But luckily, there's a simple answer to them. Shopify, it's the commerce platform behind millions of businesses, including Thrive Cosmetics and Momofuku. And it'll help You. With everything you need, from website design and marketing to boosting sales and expanding operations, Shopify can get the job done and make your dream a reality. Turn those what ifs into Sign up for your $1 per month trial@shopify.com specialoffer.

Scott Adams (32:34)

I believe there's now was it Laura Loomer who had to scoop about a whistleblower who said he saw the FBI destroy Epstein documents? Do I have that right? We're doing that from memory. I'm not sure I have that right. But would you be amazed if he found out that everything you heard about Epstein's sexual escapades was true and you even found out that he got lots of rich and powerful people involved in similarly illegal sexual activities, but it was never videoed and there was no documentation of it ever made. Would you be surprised by that? If my job involved knowing as many important people as possible so I could get favors from them and I could introduce one to the other, which is a favor. And I was also doing this illicit sex stuff, would I write any of it down? Would I send an email and say, hey, head of state on Thursday, we've got you set up with a underage person. There's never going to be any documentation. And why would he video it if it would get him in trouble, too? So the I'm kind of evolving to the opinion that it's entirely possible that the illicit sex stuff did happen, but there will never be any record of it because why would there be? So I feel like that's going to be a dead end. We'll see. Maybe some names will come out, but that's going to be quite a shade show if they do, because some of them people will be innocent. Jeffrey Epstein's ex girlfriend, this was on CNN, is accusing Trump of way back in 1993, of what CNN is calling groping her in front of Epstein. So CNN reports that Trump groped Epstein's girlfriend in front of Epstein. But then you hear what she describes and doesn't grope sound like he's grabbing her in her private parts? But then what she describes is that he's just really handsy, but not necessarily on her private parts. Now, I'm not defending him. I'm just saying that the way CNN characterized it didn't exactly match how she described it. It's not good if he was too handsy and it made her uncomfortable. Just to be clear, I'm not defending that. I'm just saying they may have added a little, may have added a little spice to that by Calling it groping. When you hear groping, don't you automatically think the naughty parts are involved? Well, I don't know. So that's her story. Nobody cares. It won't change anything. There is a story now that Trump and his team did ask about canceling some SpaceX contracts over the Elon Musk Trump disagreements that were kind of public, and that when NASA was asked, all right, are there any SpaceX contracts we can cancel? They learned that everything SpaceX does is sort of vital to our entire space program. So there wasn't really anything that our government could cancel without hurting the government more than it hurt Elon Musk. So I'm not sure I completely believe that this story is possible, that maybe they just wanted to find out if there was something they could threaten to cancel. So you don't know if they meant, you know, that they had decided they were going to cancel something. If they could find something good and cancelable, it could be that they just wanted to have a little, you know, a little leverage over him. We don't know. Anyway, Eric Schmidt, who was once the CEO of Google and one of the smartest guys in the tech world, is saying that traditional user interfaces are going to go away with AI. I saw this on an account on Exvichupo, and apparently there's an acronym for the old user interface. It's called wimp W I M P stands for Windows, icons, menus and pull downs. And Eric Schmidt points out that the user interface that we have on our phones and computers and iPads and all that, it was designed 50 years ago. 50 years ago, and the AI was will simply change its UI on the fly based on what it is that it knows you want. So does this sound familiar? The reason I bring it up is not that this specific topic is fascinating, but rather this is what I've been telling you is going to happen. And it helps when somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. In Greece, my perfect user interface would be a blank screen. And then I just start doing stuff. And because it's AI, it knows and guesses pretty quickly what it is I'm doing, and it just conforms to whatever user interface I need to get that done. Yep, it's the no Apps phone. Exactly. So, Eric Submit, who is way smarter than I am about this technology stuff, agrees, if I asked you, and I will, if you had to estimate how many illegal immigrants have been arrested so far during Trump's second term, what would you estimate? So the news is all about the deportations. So if I said to you, how many of there have been so far? What would your answer be in the, in the comments? Give me your best estimate, because I don't think you. I don't think we often see that number. Sometimes we see, you know, per day numbers and stuff like that. All right, I'm seeing your guesses from 200,000 to 25,000. 150,000. All right, some of you read the news. The answer is 150,000. Does that sound like a lot or not a lot? Because I believe that Obama, over his eight years, maybe deported around 3 million. It's really hard to deport a lot of people. Surprise. It's really, really hard to do it in gigantic numbers. So you can try as hard as you want. And at this rate, that's the first six months. If it stayed at that rate, and it won't because they have new funding, so it'll probably increase, but it would only be 300,000 a year. And so we wouldn't even reach Obama numbers. At that rate, you would be below Obama deportation numbers. So we'll see if he can make up the difference. But remember what I've been warning you about, that there will be a point where the deportations start affecting people who are not directly being deported and are not family members. It's going to start affecting just other people in a variety of ways. Then we'll see if it stays at the same rate or if there's any kind of counter movement that says, you know, you got most of them, you did a good job, you could slow down. I think that might happen. I'm going to predict that. But we'll see. Apparently the government is ramping up to deport more people, and part of that is using military bases, and there are few of them being discussed for housing illegal aliens waiting to be deported. So not only will there be these additional alligator Alcatraz situations, but Department of Defense will be using some of its facilities to house people until they can be shipped back. So that's pretty, pretty serious stuff. According to Just the news. Nicholas Ballzi, or maybe it's Balazzi, anyway, is writing about Obama just went on his wife's podcast and Michelle Obama and her brother have a podcast. So Barack Obama went on it for the first time and he made a little news by saying that he had a gay professor when he was in college and was a big positive role model to him. And he believes that young men should have friends who are gay now. I agree with him. It would be very helpful if people had friends who were of all different types of including gay and including other races and religions and stuff. And that would make the world a better place if you just had more contact with people who were more different from you. So I agree with the general concept which he is selling. However, I must ask this question. If you are the Democrat Party and what you wanted was to improve your, improve the votes you got from American men, young American men, is the message, that is the message that you want that you should get a gay friend. Did he talk to Tim Walsh about the code? Talking to men now? Again, I'm all for it. I'm not saying it's a bad idea that young men have at least one gay friend so they've got some contacts and you know, the world's a better place. I'm all for it. But the choice of what to feature as the story of the day, I'm not sure that's exactly the one they wanted if they're trying to increase their general male voting. Anyway, good job, Democrats. All right, let's talk about the Tulsi Gabbard's release of new information that suggests that the Obama and Brennan and Clapper and that crowd had cooked up the Russia collusion hoax, that they knew that Russia wasn't that involved and that they tried to sell it to the public anyway to destroy Trump's, you know, his time in office. And so I'm following the story, I'm reasonably well educated. I do want to understand it. So I'm putting some effort into it and I don't understand the story. How many of you are having the same problem, that it's just complicated enough and it spans many years and there's lots of characters and there's lots of claims. And when I hear the story, I'm watching the right leaning pod, sphere and news act like it's a really big deal and Obama could be taken away in handcuffs. And you know, maybe everything's changed, but you know that the other news that is not right leaning is treating it like nothing happened. Do you know that? So it can't both be true. That it's sort of the gigantic bombshell changes everything at the same time. Nothing really changed. So here's what I think is happening. Do you remember when the, the Hunter laptop was being spun by the 51 intelligence related people who signed on to a document that said that the Hunter laptop had all the, I'm paraphrasing, but they said it had all the markings of a Russian spy craft? Basically, those are my own words. But that's Basically, what it said, that all the indications consistent with being Russian dirty trick. But they were so clever that they didn't say, we have concluded it is Russian dirty trick. They left themselves this little weasel. This little weasel room. No, no, no. And of course, as I predicted would happen as soon as that all blew up, and we found out that that was all a lie. Brennan and Clapper both said, I believe. Fact check me on this. But I think they both said, we didn't say it was true. No, we didn't say it was true. We just said it had all the markings of something that would be consistent with the Russian plot. We didn't say it was a Russian plot. No, no, we didn't say that. We just said it was consistent. And it looked like the same kind of things you would expect. Right. Now, when I look at the Russian collusion stuff, I'm getting that same vibe because. Let's see if I can pull this together. So the. The memo that Tulsi Gabbard surfaced. Let me see if I can get this so complicated. At one point, the intelligence agents were saying that there's no evidence that Russia wanted to or tried to target election infrastructure. So there was no evidence that they wanted to or that they tried to change any votes directly by hacking into it. Now, the first thing I would say is if there's a legitimate discussion of whether or not the Russians hacked into our election system and changed votes, is there something missing there? Is there a dog not barking? Yeah, there is. And you would miss it if you got wrapped up in the story they're selling. Here's the part that they're not selling. But you would have to accept at the same time, if they even talked about the possibility that Russia had hacked and directly changed our voting system, you know, the vote count. Aren't they. Isn't the intelligence community also accepting that it was possible? And I'm pretty sure we've been told it wasn't possible. So, you know, any technology, it seems like there's a way to thwart it. But that was my first reaction, was, wait a minute. Why is there even a conversation about whether Russia might have changed the vote count? Why was that even possible? We were told that nobody could do that. Maybe we were lied to. Maybe. Maybe the intelligence community assumes that anything is riggable, then you wouldn't necessarily know it. Well. So we started with targeting election infrastructure. Now, at one point, we were told that the Russians absolutely, definitely were targeting election infrastructure and they were doing it for the benefit of Trump. I feel like the only people who said it was for the benefit of Trump were the politicians like Hillary. So Hillary was claiming, oh, it's definitely obvious, they were interfering with the election in 2016 for the benefit of Trump, but she didn't offer any proof of that. You know, it was just sort of her opinion she was trying to sell. But the intelligence community never said that Russia was interfering for Trump, did they? I'll take a fact check on that, but I think they, I think they use the same weasel approach that Hillary could say whatever lies politicians say, and nobody's surprised. But the intelligence community would just say, no, we have proof that they targeted our election infrastructure. Now, is there proof, Is there proof that Russia targeted our election infrastructure? Well, there's a little bit. Apparently there's reports, I don't know if it's true, but the reports that Russian sources did try to hack into, or maybe they did get into, two state databases of voters and what they got into voter registration databases in Illinois and Arizona. So they didn't break into something that would directly, even possibly change the votes, but they did apparently break into some databases in two states. That doesn't look like they could do much damage, but they got in there. So would that be enough to claim that the Russians hacked our, that they targeted our election infrastructure? And the answer is, yeah, tactically, you know, technically, you could say that the, the voter registration databases in those two states, if in fact we know that the Russians are the ones who act it, that would be part of the infrastructure. But there was no real chance that they could have changed votes, as far as I can tell. And there's no indication they did. And if they had, there would further be no indication that they did it to help Trump. But then they do the trick where they conflate it with the hack of the DNC emails which produced, according to Grok, the one thing that might have had some impact on the election is that the internal databases embarrassed the Democrats because it showed that they were definitely trying to screw Bernie Sanders to lock in Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Now, do you think that anybody changed their vote because of that? Might have been, maybe, but would that be an attack on the election infrastructure? I don't know, because they lump it into the same conversation. But that's not exactly election infrastructure. So what I think is going on is that we haven't learned anything new. And that's why the regular news, the non right leading news, is treating it like nothing happened, because I don't think we learned anything new, did we? And there's something. There's a story, there's a sub story about the intelligence community said there's no indication that any votes were changed by Russia or that they even wanted to. And I guess that was part of the President's daily briefing. But then somebody, and we assume it was Obama himself, decided to not do the daily briefing because allegedly the person running for office also got the presidential daily briefings, and that would be Trump. So the worry was that if, if Obama allowed the daily briefing to go ahead, it would say, the intelligence community says Russia didn't change any election results, nor is there any indication that they intended to. And that that would have made it, that would have put the lie to all the allegations that Trump was being helped by Russia. But the, the thing that the intelligence community said was really specifically, did Russia change any votes or do anything that would have changed any votes, and probably not. So I don't know. That's a little extra that we know, but we don't even know the full story behind that. There's a little speculation. So there's a couple of themes I'm giving you. One is that I don't think this story is going to have a big impact on, I don't know, let's say, the midterms. I don't think there's enough here that's going to put anybody in handcuffs. So what I'm not expecting is anybody to go to jail because of it or for it to change any future votes. So to me, it looks closer to a nothing than a something. And keep in mind that I think all the players who were named here are dirty as hell. And I think they did try to rig the election. And I do think that it was, you know, bordering on trade risks at the very least. So I'm definitely not supporting or trying to defend any of the people involved, from Obama to Brennan or Clapper. All I'm saying is if you're getting really excited because you think the smoking gun has been found and now we got them, I don't see it, maybe because it's complicated and I'm just missing something. But what it looks like is there's too much conflating of things that are slightly related but not the same. Yeah, maybe they got into some email. Did it affect the election? Were they trying to, were they trying to throw it to Trump? I don't know. So there's too much complexity, too much conflation, not enough new stuff. I don't know that it's much of anything. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with.

Ryan Reynolds (57:04)

The price of just about everything going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auction engineer which is apparently a thing Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless 2020, better get 2020. Better get 15 15, 15, 15. Just 15 bucks a month. So give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of 45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first 3 months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of network's busy. Taxes and fees extra see mint mobile.com.

Scott Adams (57:33)

Meanwhile, over in the Middle East, Israel is ordering the evacuation of central Gaza. So they need to do some more attacking of Hamas in that area. So they're asking to evacuate it. Now every time I see any photograph of Gaza, it is of completely destroyed buildings. How many people were still remaining in those buildings? Or are there other buildings that have electricity and water and are not destroyed? It looks like everything's destroyed. So I'm surprised anybody is still living there. But the, but the. Then also in a related related act, Mossad is allegedly, according to Zero Edge, is pushing for US assistance in getting other countries to accept the Gazans. Now I don't believe there's any talk of America accepting Gaza refugees and I would be very against that because you wouldn't know what you were getting. But the idea is that some other countries may be pressured to take in the Gazans. Now Israel says, well, Netanyahu says that any relocation of Gaza's population would be voluntary. So it wouldn't be genocide because they can stay if they want, but that they would create the option to voluntarily relocate outside of Gaza. To which I say, well, that word voluntary is doing a lot of work. You can stay in Gaza and your house might blow up, you won't have any electricity, everything's toxic and your children may be killed in our next bombing run. But totally voluntary. If you wanted, I mean just if you wanted it, you could relocate. But we're not saying you should and we're not forcing you. We're just saying maybe if you wanted to reduce the risk to your, your body and your family, you might want to strongly consider not being in the bombing zone. So yeah, and I saw some. Was it the, that of the adl? Greenblatt was on a show recently and he was talking about the, the negative feelings that Americans have or was it the whole world? I think Americans about Israel and things are not looking good. So in terms of reputation, Israel is having a tough year. But as I often Say I'm not judging them because it's not my country and we would probably do something very similar. And I also ask, what are they going to do? Are they just going to bomb Gaza and then say, all right, everybody go back to work and reconstitute Hamas and do it again in a few years? So all the choices are horrible. Would you agree with. So depopulating Gaza and making the voluntary offer that they could go to another country perhaps is awful. It's just terrible. But if you're Israel, letting them just resettle in Gaza would be awful. It would be terrible. So all of the choices are just hideous. So if all of the choices are hideous and somebody chooses one of the hideous choices, that's at least better for their country. Am I going to judge that? It's hideous, but it's exactly what we would do if we were in the same situation. I hope so. That's why I don't judge it. You can observe it and you can predict it and you can comment on it, but don't judge it. That just doesn't make sense when you're looking at international stuff. Countries always act in their best interest, no matter what the moral or ethical boundaries are. So this is just more of that. Meanwhile, over in Ukraine, Ukrainian and you know how the Ukrainians like to produce a lot of video of their drones blowing stuff up. Well now they have some seriously good machine gun robots that are on wheels or tracks, I'm not sure which, but they're ground based and they had some video of their machine gun robot attacking a bunch of Russians and just machine gunning them. And I remind you that my prediction, I don't know if anybody else is making it, is that there's nothing that looks like it's going to stop that war anytime soon. But when the US says we're going to make make available our good stuff. How many of you think some of the good stuff might be these ground based machine gun robots? I feel like if we weren't making them, we should have been. I mean, it looks like the obvious tool you would use against a human front line. So I believe that the front line, Ukraine versus Russia, will be the first robot only frontline of war because eventually it will just be impossible for humans to be there, but the robots will still be operating. So it'll. Right now it's robots against humans on both, both directions. But eventually it will be robots against robots. So the robots will be attacking other robots. That's almost guaranteed. According to the BBC, the writer there is Paul Adams. Which, weirdly, is my father's name. But he's long dead and I don't believe he's writing for the BBC. I don't know which would be worse. But Paul Adams reports that Ukraine is gamifying the war so that the people who are operating the drones, I think, can win points, as if they're playing a game for destroying Russian soldiers and Russian assets. So they trialed it, and it's called army of Drones Bonus. So are you worried that human beings are being rewarded, as if they're playing a game for being operators of drones that are killing actual human beings? Well, I'm not surprised. But, you know, as I said before, this is hideously, you know, sort of immoral. But on the other hand, it's not my country. And if we were in the same position and we came up with an idea that worked, but everybody thought it was gross and disgusting and immoral and unethical, we do it, if it worked. I don't know if it works, but gamifying it is really icky. But it might work. China says, according to the Epoch Times, that it will start sentencing fentanyl traffickers to death. Now, I guess Trump is the source of that because he says that in his talks with China, they've agreed to do that. I am going to predict that that's not going to happen. Now, there might be a report of some, you know, fentanyl dealer being executed. So I'm not saying that nobody will get executed because they do have the death sentence for a number of things. But what I don't believe is that China has any intention of decreasing the fentanyl precursor traffic to Mexico so that they can turn it into fentanyl. I don't think that China means it. So I think that every time they make any kind of agreement about fentanyl, time goes by and then you find out it didn't happen or it wasn't what you hoped. So I feel like they might kill some sacrificial people that they wanted to kill anyway and then say, look at us, we're killing these fentanyl dealers, but that the big players will just keep on doing what they're doing. That's what I think. I believe that that will not bear fruit. And then lastly, Owen Gregorian will be hosting a Spaces event, but only for his subscribers on X. So if you subscribe to Owen Gregorian and you want to be part of a Spaces event on X, that'll be right after the show. A few minutes after the show, you'll know where to Find them. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for today. It's a happy Sunday. I hope you're all enjoying your perfect weather, even though you're not in California, most of you. And I'm taking opinions about whether I should keep my beard. Should I grow it out? To me, it doesn't look good, and it sort of disappears on my face. You can barely see it if you're 10ft away. I don't know. What do you think? Beard or no beard? Well, we'll see. I'm going to decide today. Probably the only reason I grew it is I had that shingles attack on the side of my face. So I was waiting for that to heal before I shaved or got a haircut. And now we're just about there. I don't know. It's just so weird. I'm so surprised that people like it. There are some who don't, but there are way more people telling me to keep it. I'm a little bit insulted by that. Not really. But I do ask myself, how much my face do you want me to cover? Oh, I just realized it would cover up my biggest wrinkles. The biggest wrinkles in my face. Or. Well, would it? I don't know. Maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. All right, we got Mexican opinions on the beard. I'm going to talk privately to my beloved subscribers on locals. The rest of you, thanks for joining. I will see you again tomorrow at the same time, same place. I hope. Hope you enjoyed it. And locals in 30 seconds.