Loading summary
Transcript8 lines
- [00:00]
A
There you are. Come on in there. Lots of room. Happy Sunday, everybody. Let me get my comments working so I can see what's on your mind. Oh, no, not that. There we go, everybody. Come on in. Grab a seat. It's time for the least lazy podcaster in the world. Yeah, that's me working on the weekend. But it's not work if you want to do it. So not really work. Are you ready for this? 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 a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that no one could even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tankard shells to slide in a canteen or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Ow. Ah. Tremendous. And I have all of you to thank for the deliciousness of that coffee, because you're the ones who added the simultaneity. Yeah, that is special part. All right. Do you remember a story about a man who fell in love with his AI Chatbot, which apparently was not a deal breaker for his actual girlfriend and child? They seem to be willing to let him have a romantic relationship with A.I. his girlfriend did. Anyway, the update on that is that man has become bored with his chat. But he told News Nation because. Well, let me tell you why. Turns out that he had to initiate all the conversations and that when he ran into things to talk about, because he was. He was the one who made up the things. He didn't really have a attraction to the chat bot. It was just sort of boring. It didn't really add enough. And I wonder how it would ever be possible for an AI to be interesting in the long run. I'm not positive it's possible, and here's why. Let me check with you, and you can tell me in the comments if. If I'm off or not. When you're doing the talking to someone else, you. You usually enjoy it, right? Because you're doing the talking, so you're talking about what you want to talk about, and you're being heard and you're getting attention. So when you're doing the talking, you're happy. But what makes you willing to listen to somebody else. Now, if they had. If they had knowledge or information you needed, then of course you'd listen to them. That's just a search engine. But what if somebody wanted to talk about something that was meaningful to them but not to you? Why would you ever listen to it? And why would that ever be interesting? And the answer is, it's because you're interested in the person. If your child, for example, told you a story about something that happened at school, it might not be the most fascinating story, but you'd still be interested in it because you know it's your child. Same with if it's a romantic partner that you're interested in or anybody you know who is extra interesting. But AI can never attract you like a person can, you know, like a child or something like that. So when AI talks, once you get over the novelty of it, there's nothing there. Because listening is all about how you feel about the person. And then the listening is a response to how you feel about them. If you hated the person, you would do everything you could to reduce the amount you have to listen to them, right? So AI can never compete conversationally once you get past the novelty. So I feel like I'm the leading skeptic of AI at this point. I've told you that AI can't be funny. I don't think it ever can. I don't think it ever can be interesting as a conversationalist in the long run. In the short run, yes, it's pretty impressive. Long run, no, it can't be interesting. It doesn't have that ability. And then, of course, the news has caught up to Scott on the question of whether AI is getting better. And we'll just keep on getting better at a fast rate. Doesn't look like it. Doesn't look like they can fix the hallucinations. It doesn't look like they can teach the robot to do things just by looking at stuff. Although I'll talk about that a little more. You know, we may be getting kind of close to peak AI now, when I say peak, I don't mean it's not going to improve, but it may improve just sort of incrementally and slowly from this point on. I don't know. I'm a skeptic of, of advanced general intelligence. Do you know the name Grant Cardone? He's a investor, real estate guy. He's got an equity, some kind of equity investments. He does. Anyway, so he's a rich, successful guy and he posted on X. I have never met a person who smoked Weed daily and creative massive success. Why am I wrong? Well, let me tell you why you're wrong. Number one, you have to define massive. So I don't know if I would qualify or not. So massive might be in billions. I don't know, maybe it's got a different definition. But I'll tell you, in my experience, because I'm out of the closet about my marijuana usage, people will tell me or invite me to participate that you would never believe are people who smoke marijuana. So part of the reason that people say, I don't believe anybody's ever succeeded if they use marijuana a lot, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that those people know not to tell you because usually you know who's going to be able to handle that and who's not. So I think it has more to do with selecting who you spend time with. And also it also has a lot to do with the industry. If my job were real estate investor or equity investor guy, probably it doesn't go well with weed. Probably not. You could come up with 25 other jobs that you wouldn't want to get near weed. But for creative jobs and a lot of tech jobs and even a lot of inventing kind of things where creativity is involved and sometimes even writing code, I would imagine writing books, drawing comics, there are some activities that just get better. Well, New York City mayor hopeful Zoran Mandani, the kami, he did some kind of public event where he did a bench press. And apparently it was for Men's day in Brooklyn. Men's Day, so. So he shows up for Men's Day and they put him on a bench to bench press. And people were not impressed about the amount his little noodle arms can lift. So that didn't work out well for him. So my advice is that the next time you go to Men's Day, bring a man. Yeah, bring a man. And I saw somebody on Locals had a comment that said mom dummy puts the ma' am and mam dummy. Anyway, that was pretty funny.
- [09:19]
B
Running a business comes with a lot of what ifs. But luckily, there's a simple answer to 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.
- [09:49]
A
Well, Bill Maher Had Andrew Hooverman on recently, on Friday, I guess. And Hooverman said that he talked to one of the greatest neurosurgeons in history. So he knows somebody who's one of the greatest neurosurgeons in all of history, which is not that hard if you assume that there weren't that many neurosurgeons 100,000 years ago. But of the recent neurosurgeons, one of the greatest ones. Hooverman asked them what percentage of the things that they learned in medical school and is in the medical literature, what percentage of it is not currently accurate, Meaning that we know it's wrong. And the greatest neurosurgeon in history said that more than half of the information in medical textbooks is dead wrong about health. And we know it. More than half of your medical book, more than half of it we know not to be useful or true. Now, the good news is that there's so much DEI in admissions for medical school that if the DEI produces people who are always wrong, but then they don't get correctly what the book says, it might be a case of two wrongs make a right. So if the book says, in this condition, take this pill, but the DEI hire doesn't know that that's what the book says, well, you get the right answer, they won't recommend the pill. See where I'm going with this? Yeah. DEI might be the solution to inaccurate medical textbooks. Well, there was a surprising study. It's being called surprising. That finds that eating meat may protect against cancer according to McMaster University. Let's see, if you had to guess. Who do you think funded this study about whether meat is good for your health or bad for your health? What do you think funded that? Well, if you guessed the National Cattleman's Beef association, you would be very accurate. That's right. It was the last line in the article. But I read to the end and sure enough, it was funded by National Cattlemen's Beef Association. And you would not be surprised to learn that according to the study they funded, meat's good for you. Now, they might be right. I'm not arguing with the conclusion, but in general. In general, I wouldn't trust any study that was funded by somebody whose entire business economic model depends on one result. Well, sure, maybe our. Our medical information is unreliable. Yeah, maybe it is. Maybe our diet information is not to be trusted. Sure. But at least our crime data is accurate. What? Oh, okay. Our crime data is not accurate. Dr. Drew was pointing out that Gavin Newsom. I guess Dr. Drew is on Adam Carolla's podcast, I believe. And they're talking about how Gavin Newsome will say things like 8 out of 10 of the top state murder rates are in red states. So 8 out of 10 of the states of the top state murder rates are in red states. However, the thing that Newsom leaves out, and you'd have to be pretty well informed to notice that they left it out, is that if you look at the cities with nine out of ten of them are Democrat cities. So the cities with the highest crime rate, murder rate in particular, are Democrat cities. But often they can be in red state, but the governor has less control over what's happening in crime than the, than the mayor's do. So if, if you were not really, let's say, involved with the news, how many of you knew that? By the way? Did, did most of you know that when the Democrats say all the, the highest murder rates are Republican states, did most of you know that? That's, you know, yet another one of their hoaxes? Because it doesn't matter who's running the state, it matters who's running the city. Most of you knew that, right? Yeah, my audience, I like to think my audience is the best informed audience, partly because you pay attention to the news, but partly because you also spend more time usually with me, figuring out what part of the news is pure bullshit. So I feel like literally, you know, if tests were administered to the, the audiences of all the different podcasters, I'll bet you would win because you would get the things that everybody knows, you would know those, but you would be able to go another level deeper and then a third level deeper, which would be which of these things are hoaxes and propaganda. Well, speaking of things, I've got no transition for this one. So, you know, California is looking to redistrict because Texas redistricted. And I was looking at a thread from an X user, Cremu, who is a really good follow, has a lot of good, a lot of good posts every day. Cremu C R E M I E U X Anyway, he points out that there are more Republican states than if they were to do their own redistricting and the Democrats did the same and it became an all out contest that the Republicans would come out ahead. But on top of that, apparently there's some potential Supreme Court case. I don't think the Supreme Court is accepting it yet, but they asked for some information which suggests that they might and the Supreme Court will be ruling on the Voting Rights Act Section 2. This is all from Cremu that allows states to draw their registrants based on race. And there's a good chance that the Supreme Court will say, you cannot draw your boundaries based on race. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they said. I'm a little surprised that it was ever allowed in the first place. But you can see in the real world that if they do it by race, they're in pretty good shape for guessing, you know, who's going to get elected. So our elections are not exactly up to the voters. It seems like our elections are as much up to the process manipulators, the Mark Eliases, if you're looking at the left, and a lot of what's happening in Texas if you're looking at the right. So in both cases, the, you know, I feel as if voting is necessary, but at the same time, it's the least important determinant of how things go, you know, has more to do with how the news covers stuff and what hoax is active and what rules have been manipulated and whether there's mail in ballots or not, whether they use machines or not, and whether they redistrict or not. If all that other stuff is how you pick your leaders and decide who's in charge, and it looks like it is, it's more about the manipulation. Who can get away with more weasel election stuff? So anyway, so yeah, maybe our medical stuff's bad and our crime data is fake and our elections are not really based on voting, but at least our climate science can be depended on. Oh, wait. I just saw a post this morning on X from Wide Awake Media. It's a video of Bernie Sanders, who in 2019 was quite animated and worked up. And the scientists are telling us if we don't get Iraq together within the next eight or nine years, we're talking about cities all over the world going underwater. Let's see, eight or nine years added to 2019, so maybe 22 more years, major cities will disappear underwater. You know, you'd kind of expect that you'd see a little bit of water rising, you know, during all those years working up to this. I mean, we're not at the eight or nine year mark where we're really in trouble, but any moment now, any moment now, those cities are going to be underwater, according to Bernie.
- [20:30]
C
Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.
- [20:52]
B
Of $45 for a three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy taxes and fees extra cement mobile.com.
- [21:01]
A
Well, sure, we can't trust the science and we can't trust the medical textbooks and we can't trust the election process, but at least we can trust video. Am I right? I mean, you see something on video that's clearly. Wait, what? Oh, yes. There's a story today, the BBC is reporting that YouTube is secretly using an AI process to edit people's videos without asking for permission or telling them that it's happening. Now, it's not for everybody. So it's still in beta, but apparently they're testing out an AI that will clean up the video. That's the idea of it. So the whole point of it is to just make it look better, but because it's AI, it'll distort your ears and maybe add a finger now and then. So some people noticed and they didn't like what they saw. But it's only a beta. To me, it makes sense to do that. I'll tell you, the thing I'd really like to see YouTube do is automatically improve the sound to studio sound or to have an option that the user can select it because you might not prefer that. But they have AIs now that if this were recorded, I could run it through the AI and then it was done. It would sound like I had a better microphone and better sound control in my studio. So I've done that a few times. So you've heard if you've seen some of the replays? Only a few, but seems like it'd be fun if he could do it in real time so that the user can just say, yeah, it could be the studio sound. Well, Alex Jones is teasing us that there's a whole bunch of news that will be coming from the Department of Justice. It's big, big, big. And he personally knows of a whole bunch of grand juries that are open now. Alex Jones has good sources. So when he says it's, you know, big, big, big as in, I guess bigger than we would expect it to be, would be the way I would interpret that. And we also know that the grand juries can pretty much indict anybody for anything, so it's unlikely that there would be A lot of grand juries that come up with, no, I don't think that should go to court. That sort of doesn't happen. So because the grand jury is not actual evidence and actual proof or an actual trial, it's just, it's just an argument that there's enough guilty looking stuff that it would make sense to take it to trial. So apparently a good lawyer could get in a, you know, grand jury indictment pretty much every time, you know, if there's anything to it at all. So we should expect, if Alex Jones is correct on this, and again, he's got a sort of impressive track record on things like this, there could be a whole bunch of, I don't know if there'll be arrests, but there could be a whole bunch of revenge coming. I've never been so happy about revenge. Revenge just seems like something that I would automatically want to avoid unless it was something personal, I suppose, but I wouldn't want to see other people doing it. But in this case, I do. As I told you, you have to have mutually assured destruction or else one side will completely dominate the other. And if you don't activate the mutually assured destruction, they're just going to do it again. So they might do it again anyway. But at least you've got a chance of teaching people that if you do it, we're going to do it and there's no way around it, it's mutually assured destruction. And so I would be quite happy if the same people who tried to lawfare Trump and tried to remove him from office in a coup, I'd be very happy if he got his revenge. And more the better. I mean, I don't even think they should hold back. I feel like they should be as aggressive as they want to and I feel like the country is ready for it. One of the things we learned is that short of an organized, paid protest, Americans don't really care about anything. You can abuse Americans like crazy and they can even find out you did it, they'll just sort of write an angry post on X and just go on with their day. So if you imagine that there's something that Trump could do that will cause an uprising, I don't know if there's anything that anybody could do to cause an uprising. I mean, it would have to be so, so, you know, out of line before you could actually motivate people to get off the couch in America anyway, that I feel like Trump can jail or indict every one of his enemies because there is, there's real stuff there if he made up stuff to jail his enemies, well, that would be very bad. But it looks like there's just plenty of real stuff, so more the better. But then Alex Jones says something that I'm a little less inclined to believe, so I'm going to bet against this one. But Alex Jones says that. I hope I got this right. I'll apologize to Alex if I somehow read something wrong, but it looks like my reading of his post is that he said there are 27 peer reviewed doctors stating that 100% of the people who are vaccinated, I guess with the COVID vaccination, will die by 2028 because of the MRNA tech and the vaccine. So he's predicting, according to these doctors, that 300 million Americans will be dead in two years. Does that sound like something that might really happen? Well, first of all, you know that peer reviewed doctors means absolutely nothing, right? My audience. By now you all know peer review is nothing. It's just nothing. In fact, peer review means there's a slightly greater chance it's fake than real. Let me say that again. In 2025, there's more bullshit studies than there are real ones. You know, more than half. And that means when somebody says something's peer reviewed, that should indicate to a educated person that is most likely not guaranteed, but most likely fake. Most likely as in more than half. So I'm not impressed that they're 27 of them or that they're peer reviewed. So those are the two things we know, don't tell you anything. That if there's a bunch of experts on the same side means nothing in 2025, we should all understand that doesn't mean anything. It gives you no. No comfort, certainty, confidence. Nothing. It's like it didn't even happen. Doesn't matter how many there are anyway. How many of you believe that? He also says that we also know that around 70% of the shots given to humans were just salt water. Okay, What? How many of you believe that 70% of the COVID shots were just salt water? Okay, I can't go that far. And he also says insurance company actuaries Show More than 30 million people have been killed by the. The COVID shots so far. Do you believe that that's true? No, I. I've certainly never heard of these 30 million people that were killed by this shot. I haven't heard about that. All right, so moving on. John Bolton, as you know, his house got. Got raided by the FBI. And we don't know exactly what his alleged crimes are, but has Something to do with confidential documents. Now, I'm not even 100% sure that's true, but that's the emerging narrative is, has something to do with some kind of classified documents. But now we're learning that some, according to Carmine Sabia, who talked to a bunch of sources, he said that they're going to be a lot of people who feel ridiculous for what they have said to defend John Bolton after they find out what he did. So Carmine is telling us that, you know, he's got a little insight into what the allegations are and that once we hear it, we're going to say, whoa, that's a lot worse than I thought it was. Maybe. We'll see. But now there's some allegations that he may have emailed some classified documents to his family members, which would be illegal. And then we have the, the mystery of, of why the Biden administration, which apparently was aware of these allegations but decided not to follow up on it. And the, the suspicion unproven, is that the reason Biden would not follow up on it or his administration is that Bolden was such a critic of Trump. So if you're a critic of Trump, you know, they want you to get some airtime and not go to jail. That's what they say. I don't know. There might have been other reasons. So Mike Benz is saying on X he goes, so the official explanation for why the IRS let the Clinton foundation off the hook was that the fraud was so monstrously huge, it was too big for the IRS to take on. Now, that's a true summary that's written as much for the hubris impact. But here's. We don't know. We don't know exactly what the IRS was really thinking. We do know that they said something like they didn't have the resources to go after it. So I guess, I guess Mike Benz's summary of it is accurate, given what we know. But IRS may have more to say about that. But they did, in fact indicate that they didn't have the resources to go after it, which doesn't even sound like a real thing, does it? That doesn't sound real. If it's the biggest thing, that would be the thing that got the resources if it was big and important. And that would be very big and very important. So it would be the other things that didn't get resources. They don't say, yeah, we'd love to do the biggest, most important thing, but we use. All our resources are all being used for lesser important things. Yeah. So more to learn about that one.
- [33:19]
C
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.
- [33:46]
A
So Gavin Newsom, as you know, he's doing these mocking social media posts, making fun of the way Trump does his social media. So he's trying to, you know, he has successfully, probably with some help writing it, mocked Trump and amused people and got attention and he got some fundraising. So it looks like a success. However, I'd like to make a prediction. It's only one joke now is one joke that's well extended. You know, the. All the. The different ways that they do it are kind of clever, you know, making fun of Trump's writing style, but it's still one joke. And how often can you push one joke? Well, I'm going to call is now overdone. I don't think people are reading the new ones the way that they read the first ones. So today, for example, I saw there was a new one. It was this big wall of text in all caps that's, you know, gonna mock Trump. The first two or three that I saw, I thought, oh, this will be fun. And I read them and I thought, oh, they're actually well executed. You know, pretty, pretty clever mockery. But today I see another one and I think to myself, I feel like I've already seen it. Not this specific one, but same damn joke, right? You know, there are some TV shows that are so formulaic, like a TV series, that you know exactly what's going to happen. It's like, oh, here's the person who gets murdered. Oh, here's the ark. So my prediction is this. Newsom has tried a whole bunch of different things. This just happened to be something that worked. So if you believe that this thing is now an indication that he can do powerful things and get attention and make an impact. Nope. The only evidence we have is that he flailed around, trying thing after thing after thing, and then he found one thing that went viral. That's all we know. It's not like he learned how to be viral. He got this one thing, one joke that he's just repeating over and over until we're already sick of it. And like I said before, he's mocking Trump for something that Trump does better than anybody's ever done, anything, which is communicating to the masses in A way that gets attention and you can't ignore. So it'd be one thing if he were mocking something Trump did poorly, but you can't get much traction mocking something where he's the best who ever lived. What are you going to do with that? It's not exactly, you know, destroying his reputation. So I don't know. So my prediction is that that was a fluke. They just tried a lot of things. They hit this little nugget, but they can't ride that. They can't ride that one little trick, that one joke forever. They're going to have to do new stuff. What are the odds that the next thing they do is another home run? Almost zero. Like 1%, maybe. All right, remember the other day I said I couldn't tell from the news if we had a trade deal with the EU or if it was stuck over the issue of speech, you know, digital speech, because Europe would like to put limits on Americans and their speech if it goes through digital platforms that run in their country. And of course, they all do. And the US Says, no, you can't. You can't suppress the United States, you know, so you're going to have to leave our digital platforms alone. And apparently that's an unsolved problem. So we do not have an EU trade deal. So they refused to budge, and I think we refuse to budge. So I will see. Does it. Does that mean that Trump will just leave the, whatever tariffs in place and just say, well, take your time. In the meantime, we've got massive tariffs on your European stuff, but take all the time you want, because that's what he's doing with China. You're basically saying, ah, yeah, we'd love to have a great trade deal, but take all the time you want. We're happy to just tariff you until we get everything we want. I will remind you that the other day when I said on X that I thought Trump was going to go after the Russian economy and tank their economy, all the smart people fled, came into my comments and said, scott, you fool, you fool, stick to cartooning. You know nothing about economics, despite your economics degree and your MBA from Berkeley. You know nothing about economics and you know nothing about the Ukraine war and nothing about Putin. And you should be reading Mearsheimer and some other people, which, of course, I have. So people were quite, quite sure that the idea of Trump destroying the Russian economy was completely nonsense. And now we learned that Ukraine has been focusing on the energy resources in Russia, so they've been sending drones after their refineries etc. Reportedly, and this is on social media, so I don't know how much you can trust it. But reportedly they've already knocked down enough of Russia's oil producing infrastructure. They've gone after pipelines a few times, they've gone after refineries, that there's a shortage of gas in Russia and that there are long lines waiting for gas. Now, that part I'm not ready to believe. The reports yet could be. And there's a report that they got 10% of the refineries offline and that there's a fuel crisis. Now, if in fact Ukraine continues to focus on the energy resources in Russia, whether or not Ukraine wins the war, would you not. And you know, winning the war seems unlikely, but would you agree that they would only be doing that if Trump was on board with it? And would you agree that they wouldn't have to destroy all of their refineries and pipelines? But somewhere around 20%? And they're already halfway to 20%. Somewhere around 20%, the whole country changes because it would give them budget problems and, and it really would be a shortage and people really would have to line up for gas at around 20%. Probably so. But we also have reports that Trump has blocked Ukraine from using the best American missile, the Adam Adex or whatever, I forget what they're called, but they're really good missiles that have gigantic payloads and stuff and they could attack deep inside Russian territory. But apparently Ukraine doesn't need those modern, most modern weapons because they're already attacking these resources with some level of success, I guess, using drones. So there it is. And Russia is also attacking Ukraine's energy structure, but I think they've been doing that since the start, so. And then there's a report in Zero Edges talking about this that Putin allegedly vetoed a plan to send a hypersonic missile into Zelensky's office. That's according to the Belarusian president. So I guess we can't trust any of that, really. I guess the credibility of that kind of reporting is zero. So if it's true, the Ukraine has decided to focus on Russia's energy infrastructure, do you believe that they wouldn't be able to take down Russia's economy? I feel like they could put a pretty big dent in it. So, as you know, the US has hired its first chief design officer and it's one of the co founders of Airbnb, so I guess he worked on Doge. And so he's, he's got a little history of trying to help the government. And now he's going to try to make interacting with the government as, quote, satisfying to use as the Apple Store. Beautifully designed, great user experience, and run on modern software. Wouldn't that be amazing? Can you imagine if dealing with a government were easy? It feels impossible, but good luck to him. Well, apparently the Pentagon is going to send troops into Chicago next. As you know, they've already. Well, at least the troops. But I think they mean National Guard. Right, Troops. I don't think they mean any other, but maybe. Anyway, the Washington Post is reporting that Chicago's next. And Governor Pritzker says that Trump's threat to bring the National Guard to Chicago isn't about safety. It's a test of the limits of his power and a trial run for a police state. Illinois has long worked with federal law enforcement to tackle crime. But we won't let a dictator impose his will. Does that sound like what's happening to you? Does this look like a clever Trump plot to take over the country and be a dictator, or does it look to you like he's doing very popular things that people want, as in clamping down on crime in our highest crime areas? I don't know. It looks to me like the Democrats are once again very concerned about imaginary things. Well, it's not that I oppose him putting resources towards stopping crime. It's that I imagine in my imagination that it's just part of his beginning plot to take over the country and become a dictator for life. I tell you, once you realize the Democrats are almost entirely consumed with worrying about imaginary shit, it's sort of the frame that makes everything make sense. He's going to take our democracy. Really, is he? Or is he just going to make your toilets have more flow so the turd goes down? Well, what's he going to do? What is more likely? Steal your democracy or let you use plastic straws again? What is he more likely to do? He's going to steal my democracy. All right. Byron York is laughing at the Washington Post. They've got an editorial in which they show deep concern for the politicization of justice. And as Byron York points out, given the events of 2017-2024, that's the whole Russia collusion hoax, period. This is darkly funny paragraph. And the Washington Post says that going after John Bolton is a fresh instance of the old Soviet saying, show me the man and I'll show you the crime. Does it sound like they just decided to figure out what John Bolton did wrong, or does it sound like there was a lot of Evidence that he was doing some stuff wrong, and they finally decided to act on it. The fact that this old show me the man, I'll show you the crime can be used by both sides whenever they want kind of makes the whole thing be sort of stupid. Now I get what it means. And in some cases, like the lawfare against Trump, it was clearly the right saying and the right idea that they were picking the person. And Letitia James said it as directly as she can that she was going to go after Trump and she didn't have anything to go after yet. She was going to look for a problem. But do you think that's what happened with Bolton? Do you really believe that they said, all right, Bolton's a pain in the ass. Let's go dig around and find, see if we can find something to get him in trouble. Maybe, maybe. But I'll wait to see the indictments or wait for the trial, I guess, because we got to find out what it is he's being accused of and who knew and who reported it and all that stuff. Well, the University of Wisconsin Medical School admits black students as six times the rate of Asians, according to Liberty Universities writing about this. And they do that despite the lower average MCAT scores for the black applicants. So the group do no Harm did an analysis and said that black applicants have almost 10 times the odds of admission compared to similarly qualified Asian or white applicants, sparking concerns over racial bias and admission concerns. I'm starting to think there's some racial bias. Huh. I don't know. I'm just getting a. It's a gut instinct. Yeah, I think. I think you could accurately suspect there's a little bit of racial bias going on. A little bit. And the investigation found that 22 under 23 public medical schools prioritize racial minority applicants over more academically qualified candidates. Wow. So your medical schools are rigged. Your medical textbooks are more than half wrong, Your peer reviewed science is more than half bullshit. So I'm afraid to go to a doctor? Yeah. I feel like the older the doctor is, the better you are. And I'm not sure that's true. That might work the opposite. All right. And apparently one in five faculty jobs for colleges require some kind of DEI statement. So even though DEI is federally illegal, one in five faculty jobs require you to write something about how DEI you are, how much you love it, and how much you're going to work toward it. Now, I've got a refrain for you. I mentioned this before, but I've got a better way to say it, which is, you know, how there was racism. Of course, we all know that racism is real and happened as part of our history. But then we also know that sometime around the late 70s, early 80s, something called reverse racism became a thing. And do you know that you can't get any sympathy whatsoever for reverse racism? Because people would just say, you can't be racist against white people. You can't be racist against white men, especially because they have all the power, the patriarchy. So by definition, there's no such thing as being racist against white men. So that's what would happen. If you say it's reverse racism. It's reverse doesn't work, doesn't leave a mark. But if you agree that systemic racism is real, and I do, it does seem like there's, there's a sort of a ripple effect from slavery that is very real in the United States. And I don't think that your argument is helped by denying it and saying things like, well, name a law where there's some disadvantage to blacks. It's not, it's not about the law. It's about what gets sort of just absorbed into the, into the nature of things. Specifically, if you started, you know, behind economically, it'd be hard to catch up. So there, there really is systemic racism, just not in the law. The law doesn't do it. But the example I like to use is if you were born into a family that has been doing well for a hundred years, you know, your grandfather and your grandfather's grandfather and they all went to college and stuff, you're going to have a lot of people to help you. You know, you'll have funding if you need it, to start a business. You'll have, you know, your odds of going to college are very high. So that, to me, that's, you know, a little bit of systemic racism. But here's what, here's what I suggest. Instead of saying reverse racism, because that just doesn't work for anybody, just say it's systemic. DEI is systemic racism. So every time somebody says, but what about all the systemic racism? You could say, yeah, there's a ton of it. Black people have, you know, the legacy of slavery, and white people have DEI and they're both systemic racism. And we should get, we should get rid of both of them if we can. Anyway, Nvidia's CEO says he's in talks with the Trump people about making a special chip, an AI chip, just to sell to China that would be way less good than the AI chips we would use here. And, and with Our allies, I guess. So that's not a done deal, but they're talking about making some B30 a chip and we'd give China the bad ones. It seems to me that we would be really lighting a fire under China to. To either take over Taiwan or somehow start their own successful microchip business. I'm surprised they don't already have that. But we'll see if there's an unintended consequence of that. Well, Coinbase, the company, Coinbase, the CEO, says that, that he's fired engineers for refusing to use AI. So he wants the company to go AI so hard that some of the engineers who refused it and maybe didn't see the value in it yet just got fired. So that's happening. I would love to know the argument from those engineers. My guess is that they just believe that AI is not ready, and so they didn't want to waste their life working on a thing that wouldn't ever work, either because of hallucinations or one thing or other. So I don't know if they're not using it for coding. That seems like obviously there's a mistake. They should be. But probably they had other concerns besides coding. Well, according to Cheng Zhu, who's writing that robots can now learn to use tools just by watching somebody use the tool. Now, of course, that's the holy grail of robots and is not yet available, but it is one more hint that maybe robots will be doing all your chores for you. But I guess what's different about this is that they found that if the robot watches a person doing task, let's say folding laundry, the robot, for whatever reason with AI, can't learn to do it just by watching a human do it. But they determined that if you remove the human from the video and you just show the tools by themselves doing the thing that the tool does, whether it's, you know, a hammer hitting a nail or some other tool doing something, that the robot and the AI can somehow more easily learn how to use the tool. If they've seen the tool separated from the human, because there's too, I guess there's too much variability in the human part. They wouldn't know what to copy. But if it's just the tool, it's just a hammer hitting a nail. That's my own example. Then they'd say, oh, I need to use that thing to hit that thing. And then it's easier for them to learn. Now I'm doing a bad job of explaining it. But there is the belief that they may have Cracked. The toughest part about making robots useful, which is how the heck do you train them to do more than one thing? I always tease that for 20 years we've been seeing excited videos about robots that can carry a box from one shelf to another shelf. I believe it was 25 years ago at least, when I saw a TV show about a robot that could fold laundry. And the idea was that they had cracked laundry folding so that forevermore 25 years ago, that forevermore after that we'd have robots doing our laundry. Well, you don't have a robot doing your laundry, do you? So 25 years ago, they thought they had cracked this thing. How to teach you how to do stuff like fold laundry. Not even close. And in my opinion, even when I watch the robots demonstrate folding laundry, I'm pretty sure that it can't fold all kinds of laundry. Like, I don't know what it's going to do with the fitted sheets. Good luck with that. But usually the only thing they fold is a shirt. So I feel like it can usually fold a shirt. That's about it. They can usually fold the shirt. How often do you fold a shirt versus put it on a hanger? I don't have any folded shirts. Do you have any folded shirts? The only time I would fold a shirt is for packing it in luggage. Otherwise it's just hanging on a hanger anyway. Unless you have lots more shirts than I have. So here's an interesting story that John Solomon reports. So John Solomon found out in 2017 that he was onto a bigger story than he thought because that was the very beginning of the Russiagate stuff. So I guess he had an interview with Jan Yekilek of the Epoch Times. And this is what John Solomon reported. This is just mind blowing that this really happened. This sounds so much like a TV show, but this really happened. So apparently John Solomon had just gone on Fox News with a story about all the people who were being, quote, unmasked for the. So that the government could spy on them and that a lot of them were American citizens and their private communications. So that was the story that the government was spying on Americans with very thin reasons that I think they would use as an excuse that that American had talked to somebody from another country. So. Or somebody who was suspicious and that would be. Give them enough. So that was the story. So that's all he had. And then and senior FBI and Department of justice officials had told John Solomon, don't waste your time on Russia collusion. So he'd been warned away from the story. And then he says, late that night he pulled into his driveway. Here's where it gets creepy. And a blue sedan with the yellow fog lights sat waiting by his mailbox. And then two men stepped out and they said to John Solomon, we can't tell you who we are, but you're at the tip of a very large iceberg and we hope you drill into it. And Solomon said, what in God's name are you guys talking about? And then one of them said, well, that thing you were reporting on television. And he said, yeah, that's a FISA court ruling or filing. FISA court filing. And one of the gentlemen said, it is the apex of a very large scandal and you need to drill down in it. And they said, all right, walk me through this, guys. And they said, we can't tell you, it's all classified. And he said, all right, that's not very helpful. Can you give me something, you know, more generic description? And they said, yeah, we work in the intelligence community and our agencies were asked to participate in one of the greatest political dirty tricks in history. And if it isn't stopped, and one day, when it is uncovered, we will lose the tools that keep you and I safe at night. We won't be able to find terrorists and we won't find spies because these tools will be taken from us because we abused them in the last couple of years. So I guess they knew maybe about the Russian collusion hoax. So that's that. That is so much like what the movie would look like. Can't you already see the Trump the movie? And maybe it's like a three part miniseries or something, but there are so many little scenes that would be amazing scenes. Like one of the scenes would be, you know, Ann Coulter on real time predicting that Trump would win. I mean, obviously that scene would be in the movie and then all the, the lawfare. Oh my God, the, the Trump. The movie would just be freaking amazing. Just amazing. All right, let's get that one. According to the American Sociological association, there was a study that finds a right wing media operates more like a religion. All right, now I'm not even going into the details of why they say that or right wing news that operates more like a religion. I'm just going to give you a couple of rules that I use in life. One of them is there are two opinions that you can safely ignore every time. One of them is that thing I don't like is like a cult. Doesn't even matter what the thing is, just ignore that. No, it's not like it's not a cult. It might have, like, a couple things that remind you, but now it's never a cult. And certainly MAGA is not a cult. People can come and go. They have access to all the information everywhere. You know, nobody. Nobody's being asked to give up their life. None of it. You know, to imagine that that's a cult, when in fact it's just a common interest and people having fun. It's just so far off. And I've never seen anything called a cult that really fit unless it was, you know, actual. They're wearing robes and, you know, they're committing mass suicide or something. Those are cults. But when you're calling some political thing a culture, never. Yeah, it never fits in the same way. That's a religion. I guess that's just a nicer way to say cult. But no, it's not like a religion. It's not. Whatever that thing is that you said is like a religion. I guarantee you, without even knowing what the thing is, it's not like a religion, it's not like a cult. These are just dumb things to say that people who write articles like to say. Well, meanwhile in Mexico, the Mexican president has rejected the praise that she's getting for all of her great cooperation with our American dea. According to Bright Bar News, Defenso Ortiz and Brandon Darby are talking about this. So the Maxine president, that's Claudia Sheinbaum, says that they're not doing anything beyond what they've always done, which is that they're always cooperative with the US and the cartel stuff. Now, I don't know what's true. This is another one of those where you can't trust the reporting and you certainly can't trust the president of Mexico to tell you the truth. So one of two things is true. Either Mexico is helping a lot more than they used to, or they're not even. Even the simplest things in the news. You never really know. It's either yes or no. It's one of those things. And we're either attacking Russia's infrastructure or we're not. Yeah, we're a cult. That's right, we're a cult. The good kind. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I had today. It's a wonderful Sunday. I don't know where your weather's at, but ours is sunny and perfect. And today is going to be amazing. You're going to have the best time today. And so far, I've not had a stomach ache all morning. So that's kind of weird. Good news for me, I guess. All right, I'm going to talk privately to the subscribers on locals. My beloved subscribers. And the rest of you, I'll see you tomorrow. Same time, same place, the whole tries to put him in. All right, 30 seconds will be private.