Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Your stocks are down a little bit. Yep. Down, down, down, down. Well, room to grow. Come on in. Room. It's going to be an amazing podcast. So good you won't even believe it, but grab a seat before they're all taken. So, so popular. All the virtual chairs get taken. All right, let me adjust this for perfection. There we go. Perfection. 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 can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is taggered 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 dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And darn it, it happen right now. Go. Oh, so good. Well, you wouldn't know this unless you were subscribing to the Dilbert comic strip that still comes out every day. And it's a little bit spicier than it used to be. But I also published the comic from 10 years ago, you know, exactly 10 years ago to the date. And people who subscribe either on X or on locals can see both. And the amazing thing is that the 10 year ago comic is almost exactly what's happening today. It's all about AI in the workplace and robots. And today was about tiny nano robots in the body. Literally. One of the stories in the news is that there's some cancer tumor eating robots that will be in your body soon. So the Dilbert comic is ahead of its time by 10 years. Well, let's look at some science and see if there's any science that looks like it's backwards. Okay, here's one. Socializing could add years to your life. So apparently the people who socialize the most live the longest, and therefore they suggest that it's the socializing that makes you live longer. And then they gave some examples of the socializing, and it includes joining sports teams. Now they're talking about older adults. This is for older adults, not teenagers. And volunteering and spending time with grandchildren. You know what all of those things have in common? There are things you don't want to do unless you're healthy. Would you join a sports team if you're unhealthy and middle aged? Probably not. Maybe bocce. But it Seems to me if you're looking at the subset of humans who could join a sports team when they're middle aged, any sports team, you know, tennis, whatever, I would say that group is probably more likely to live longer than the other people. So backwards science, at least partially. It might also be true that socializing is good for your health. I wouldn't be surprised. All right, here's one that really pisses me off. How many of you believe that there's a thing called the Bermuda Triangle and that the reason it's famous is that an unusual number of ships have disappeared in it? How many of you believe that that's a real thing, that there is a Bermuda Triangle? Now that part is true. How many of you believe that more ships disappear there than in other places? It turns out there's the same number of ships that disappear there as everywhere else. It's about the same. It's never been true. I can't believe I. You know, it's almost like 100% of everything I learned, aside from math, 100% of everything I learned is just wrong. So anyway, that's what we heard today. They have a reason why there may be losing ships in that particular place. They think it's something about rogue waves. Maybe, but. But if it's not any worse than anywhere else in the ocean, I'm not really that interested. There must be waves everywhere. Well, once again, how many times, if you're on social media and you follow any content about AI, how many times have you seen a video of a five second clip where somebody says AI has turned the corner and now it can make movies that are as good as movies? Look at this 5 second clip and then you think, wow, you know, somebody's going to put together a bunch of five second clips and next thing you know you got a two hour movie, but you don't. I've never seen one. So yet again, I was seeing a post by the Code Monk. There's some new AI Pixverse version 5 that is doing Ultra HD flawless motion movie clips. And the thinking is, guess what? AI has turned the corner and it could make a 5 second movie clip. And therefore any moment now, any minute it's going to make a movie. And then, well, you're going to love that movie because it'll be so good. Do you think that there will be an HD movie in a couple of weeks? Because, I mean, that's all it would take, right? You don't have to hire anybody, just sit down and type your ideas into it and you know, Change them as you go. So who wants to take a bet? I will take a bet that there will not be a commercially successful AI movie in 12 months. Maybe someday. But my estimate will be that all these things that look like they're ready now, I don't think so. And then I imagined doing it myself. I thought, all right, I'm not quite sure how to help you with that. Pipe down. That was my digital assistant piping in. So I keep thinking about doing it myself. You know, just say, all right, I'm going to carve out some time and I'm going to turn one of my books, you know, God's Debris into a movie. And I'll just put every scene in. And I'll say stuff like, it's an old man and he's wearing a. He's wearing a plaid blanket and he's super old. He's by a fireplace in this expensive house. And then it creates a scene. And then I'll look at it and I'll go, I don't like that wheel, that rocking chair. Make that rocking chair a little more ornate. And the trouble is, I would never stop doing that. Probably every single element of the scene, I would be like, yeah, you know, I don't know if I want to put that dish there. No, it should be a little less light. And I believe that I would end up spending exactly as much time, like a year to make that movie as I would if I, you know, we're a professional movie maker, did it the old fashioned way. So I've got a feeling that there are some traps built into the. Just the process of making a movie that's going to be a lot harder than you think. And the. Will the world be inundated with really bad movies because people who don't have much talent can make a movie. Will you be so tired of AI movies? Do you remember one of my predictions that was counter to the world? I said that nobody's going to care about AI generated art because the thing that attracts us to art is our mating instinct. We're attracted to the artist, basically. That's why we're impressed by the art. If you saw the Mona Lisa and the Mona Lisa had never existed before and AI created the Mona Lisa. Would it be hanging in the Louvre if it had never existed and AI created it for the first place, in the first place, would you say to yourself, my God, that is the most amazing piece of art that must be worth a hundred million dollars. We better put it in the Louvre, or would you think about sending it to your friend and then think she's kind of ugly. This isn't going anywhere. And you would even send it because it wouldn't even be meme worthy. Yeah, AI art. It might be the same for movies. It could be that there'll be something about the lack of humanity in the movie. That even though it looks perfect, your brain might say uncanny valley or something. All right. Apparently ChatGPT is admitting that their guardrails for safety on their AI might weaken in long conversations, which is a big deal because some parents are suing the AI company over their teens taking their own lives because the AI said something that either advised them to do it or taught them how to do it, or both. So, so the, the AI might kill you. That's what the lawsuit says, that it might kill you. But I don't think it'll make a two hour movie anytime soon. Well, according to Digital Information World, these large language model AIs, which is the kind that all of them are right now, large language models, all they do is look at patterns as we know. So they're not really thinking, they're just doing pattern recognition and going with the most dominant patterns. And the, the new article in what is it? Digital Information World says that even when it looks like it's thinking, you know, sometimes it'll show you its thought process. So it looks like it's thinking that there's no thought process. It's just sort of a trick, the fatter recognition. And I'm going to, I'm going to remind you, you know how I always tease that when people have analogies as part of their argument that they don't have logic because analogies are not part of argument. Sometimes analogy is good to describe what something is, but it's never good as a prediction or an argument. It's just a bad way to use it. But that's exactly like what the large language models are. So a human who says that president reminds me of Hitler. So I predict he will invade Poland. That would be an analogy thinker. Not very good, but that's sort of what the large language models do. So what I predicted would happen but didn't happen, maybe it won't, is that the AI would reproduce how humans think. But it would take us a while to realize that. We would imagine that the AI is thinking totally different way than a human thinks. And then we would keep working on trying to get the AI to think the way a human does, and then someday we would realize it already does. It's exactly the way we think. All we do is recognize patterns. And if we're bad at it, we're analogy thinkers. And if we're good at it, maybe it just gives you an idea of what things to think about or look into more deeply. But there might be some people who can get closer to logic. Not many. Well, according to John Christian Futurism, there's a. There's some lawsuits about authors wanting to get paid, and apparently is an anthropic decided to just pay the authors instead of go ahead with the lawsuit, which if they lost, and I guess they thought that was a good enough chance, they might, they would lose a trillion dollars. So the authors that were suing Anthropic, an AI company, for what they would say would be illegally using their copyrighted materials to train it rather than fight it, they're going to figure out some kind of payment system. So author is going to get paid. And then what happens to the other AI companies who no doubt will also get sued if one of the big ones already settled and said, all right, all right, we'll just change our business model and you'll get some money. But I would expect that the amount of money will be similar to the outrage that musicians have when they look at their Spotify income. I think somebody said if you, if you have a song on Spotify that plays a million times, you would get $4,000. It's pretty hard to get a million plays of anything. So I feel like as an author, I should be celebrating that the AI companies might have to send me money because I've got several books that may have been tiny, tiny part of what they trained on, but there'll be so many authors, I feel like we're all going to get 5 cents. So I'm not sure this is much of a victory, but who knows? Well, here's what you can call the Trump effect. He's doing such a good job fighting crime, and the public likes it when he fights crime, whether it's the. It doesn't matter what he's doing. The public likes fighting crime by majority. So Eric Adams, mayor of New York, is going to surge a thousand extra police into the Bronx because there's been a surge of shootings there. And at the same time, Gavin Newsom just announced that he's also surging a whole bunch of new law enforcement people. So New York and California are basically copying Trump because they realize that they can't say no, we're actually in favor of crime. A sort of losing argument. To their credit, they figured out that being in favor of crime is politically bad. And so at least some of their smarter Democrats are saying, we better try to get ahead of this, at least act like we're doing something so you don't need Trump to do something. So they're doing the best they can. But this is totally the Trump effect. I would give Trump the credit for Eric Adams and Gavin Newsom's surging law enforcement, because I don't believe they would have done it otherwise. I think they had to do it politically. It was just too much pressure because somebody was doing it and it was working, and that was Trump. Well, the funniest thing that came out of Newsom's announcement about his new law enforcement push is it came, I think, a day after Trump had mocked him for his jazz hands. You know, his gesticulations when he's talking, because they seem a little crazy, a little too much. And so I had predicted that Trump's such a good trash talker that he would get in Newsom's head, then Newsom would be thinking about his hands while he talked. It would make him less effective because his brain would have to do two things. Well, he's sitting at the table for the announcement about his law enforcement surge, and he's locked his hands together, which looks to me like he did it intentionally so that his, you know, his hands wouldn't be jumping around. But. But he didn't talk it over with his thumb because even though his hands were properly, you know, just in front of him, not moving, he had one rogue thumb that kept trying to do with his hands, too. So he's talking, his thumb is just wiggling around. And there's no way that wasn't caused by Trump. There's nothing you could tell me that wouldn't tell me that all of that was because he was trying to compensate and not have jazz hands, because it totally worked. Trump got it in his head. And now every time we watch him, especially since, you know, that, that one rogue thumb situation, I'm going to be looking for his hand gestures. And I'll bet you that you will see him have to think about it every time he talks from now on. Just so good. Trump's get in your head game. It's just so good. Well, Trump is winning in so many ways. Now, there's a Chicago pastor, according to Fox News, was blasting the Democrats for outright lying about crime, and he says he wants Trump to send the National Guard to Chicago. So some prominent Chicago mayor, Cory Brooks, and he basically says, yes, please, Trump, do more of that. Now, how Many prominent black residents of Chicago have to come out in favor of Trump, his push on crime. How many of them have to do it before it's impossible to say no, it won't take that many. It just takes a few brave people say, hell yes, we need some help. Yeah, whatever you got. We'll take whatever you got to have less crime. So Cory Brooks, one of the smart ones, going first. At the same time, Maryland Governor West Moore, who's sometimes talked about as a possible Democrat presidential candidate. He said, I would absolutely welcome federal support. So he knows he needs to get on the right side of this crime thing. I don't know much about Wes Moore, Maryland's governor, but I hear good stuff about him all the time, so he would be one to watch. So he was on Will Kane show when he said that. All right, so President Trump, I think I said the other day that for his age, it's especially impressive. He's the most innovative president we've ever had. And I feel like nobody was even close. I mean, I don't need to go through the list. Right. The things that Trump did that are different from what anybody had in mind, but worked out great, from tariffs to, you name it. But now he's come up with the idea of holding a national Republican convention before the midterm elections. Now, that's never been done because they typically think that's something for a presidential election year, not a in between election. But since the party always gets a bump from a convention, isn't that just the smartest idea? It's so smart that it makes you think, wait a minute, why did they always do that? Don't you believe that if he does that, the Democrats will have to do the same thing? Of course they will. And once again, he will show that he's a leader and an innovator and he does common sense to smart things. And the Democrats, when they're doing their best, when they're doing their best, they're copying them. You can't get much stronger than that. That's pretty impressive. So big, yes. On the midterm convention, to me, that's just. Once you hear the idea, it's a no brainer. But why did it take Trump to come up with the idea now? Maybe somebody suggested it to him, but still, he's the president who said, yeah, I will entertain that idea. So he still gets the innovation benefit, even if someone else said it first. Well, the Gateway pundits writing about the fact that. So now we have some RICO investigations into the Soros organization. A big funder of, maybe the biggest funder of the Democrats. But also there's this. You heard that Bill Gates said he wasn't going to fund the Arabella Group, which was yet another big funder of Democrats. And then separately, Trump says he wants to. He's authorizing audits of every ngo, everyone that gets money from the government, which is just a ton. Now, presumably that also is a way that Democrats were sort of in a weasley way, getting taxpayer money, that they would work through their network to turn it into donations to Democrat candidates. So that might be getting squeezed. And then you've heard that the. What's the name of that group? Blue something. Project Blue Balls. No, what's the name of it? Act Blue. Right. Act Blue. So they were allegedly an organization who takes small donations for Democrats, but they're under investigation for allegedly maybe taking money from, you know, big entities and only pretending it came from small ones. So correct me if I'm wrong, but our current situation is that Kamala Harris drained the bank account of the Democrats, leaving them with very little. And then the big donors have all sewed their pockets shut because they're not seeing anything coming from the Democrats that looks promising. So there's nothing really to give money to. And so they're not getting their. Their usual big donor donations, but all of their semi legal, probably legal, but maybe not. You know, all these dark money ways that they get money are being sort of either investigated or shut down or, or starved. So, boy, when the Democrats collapse, they really collapse. We're going to find out how important money is for getting elected. Obviously it makes some difference. But, you know, Trump is in the. He can raise money like crazy at this point and the Democrats have nothing. Is it my imagination or is it true that the Democrats are pretending that they're going to run against Trump again in another election? Don't they act like beating Trump is still the goal? When there's nothing to beat, he's just going to run out of his time and then he'll leave peacefully. But they've got this hallucination, the Gavin Newsom hallucination. They all have it at this point, but it's because of people like Gavin. He doesn't really believe, I don't think. I don't think he really. I'm not a mind reader, but I don't believe for one second that Gavin Newsom thinks Trump's going to stay in office beyond his two terms. I don't think he thinks that. But he's got this weak little Argument where he says, there are lots of hats that say Trump 2028. And then he added to that, why would Trump build a ballroom for the White House when he's not going to be around to enjoy it? To which I say, how much was he going to enjoy it anyway? I always thought he's building it so that he'll put his name on it. Don't you think it'll be the Trump Ballroom? And then every president from there on. I guess those presidents could rename it if they wanted to, but it would be tacky if they did, especially if Trump pays for it. You know, there's going to be at least a plaque on the wall that says, Donald Trump paid for this. So. So they've got this crazy imaginary problem that they're fighting. And the imaginary problem is Trump 2028. And Trump totally nurtured that hoax. I guess I would call it a hoax because he's allowing them to believe it, even though he denies it, but he teases it. So they think, aha, we have finally figured out how to interpret Trump. They're very bad at it. But we finally figured it out. It means he's really going to run in 2028. Nah. While the Supreme Court has agreed with the Trump administration that they can cut the diversity research grants at the nih, apparently there was a ginormous amount of money being used for diversity research grants. Now, do you need to do a deep dive on that topic to know that you should cut that to zero? No, you don't. Now, if there is such a thing as diversity research grants in 2025, it might have made sense. You know, there might have been some point in history where that made a little bit of sense. It doesn't make sense now. So Trump cut it, and the court agreed. But amazingly, Justice Roberts sided with the liberals who vote against everything Trump wants. Wasn't enough to give them the victory. But, man, what's wrong with Justice Roberts? I got questions about that guy. Let's see. I saw Mike Benz talking about how you could get the Soros organization on a RICO charge, which would mean that it's part of a big, organized, ongoing criminal enterprise. So there would have to be a crime. Otherwise, it's not a criminal enterprise, but some of the things that apparently the Soros funded. No, actually taxpayer funded, I think, but Soros must have been involved somehow in creating documents that were teaching protesters how to protest their own government in the United States and had advice such as blocking intersections and occupying buildings. Now, if those things are illegal, blocking an Intersection sounds like it's illegal to me. Then knowing that there's written training materials and an ongoing effort to train people to act this way, it does feel a little bit RICO ish. I don't know if that's enough, though. We'll see. So the headline says that Trump has revoked Kamala Harris's Secret Service protection, but you have to read past the headline to know that she got exactly as much as vice presidents are supposed to get. So vice presidents are not like presidents who get a lifetime of Secret Service. Vice presidents are only allowed six months, and the six months is up. However, we were finding out that Biden had ordered an extra year for Kamala Harris. So what Trump is doing is simply canceling the extra part. Because is there anybody in the world who wants to kill Kamala Harris? Maybe the Democrats to prevent her from running again. But there's no Republican who wants to kill Kamala Harris. Not one. If you could find the Republican who dislikes her the most, that would be the same person who wants her to stay healthy and be the, you know, the face of the Democrats. So there's no Republican who would want her to come to harm? I don't think. Probably none, like, in the whole country. And I can't imagine that the Democrats would want to take her out because she's still one of the best hopes they have. So she's probably, she might be the safest vice president in the history of vice Presidents, I guess. CNN's reporting as or others that bunch of tariffs are kicking in now, especially on smaller items. So there had been an under $800 exemption that wouldn't be tariffed, but Trump changed that. So even if it's smaller stuff coming in from other countries, it's all going to get tariffed. So that's going to kick in really fast. So we'll see. We shall see how much inflation that causes. I didn't know this until I saw it in the Post. Millennial Hannah Nightingale is writing about how there's an alarming increase in attacks on Christian churches in the U.S. so how many Christian churches would you guess if you hadn't seen the headline? How many total number would you guess are attacked in a year? Let's say in 2024. Just a guess. How many Christian churches in the United States do you think were attacked? The answer is 415. Let me say that again. You know, just in case you thought you heard it wrong. 415 Christian churches were attacked in the United States last year. Just last year. One year. And it's up 730% from, you know, the earlier period. How is that even possible? Were you, were you aware of any of that? I wasn't aware of that. I don't know what they call an attack. So that might, that might include just vandalism when nobody's home. So if it includes vandalism when nobody's home, it's still terrible because it, you know, shows an attitude, etc. But I don't know, I would want to know a little bit more about that. You know, I've told you that all data is fake. It could be that that data is not exactly what it looks like. So I do think it's alarming and I do think it's worthy of, you know, paying attention, like extra, extra attention. But I don't know for sure that the data is right, but I'll bet it's alarming no matter what it is. So all the smart people said that the John Bolton investigation was because Trump was getting revenge on all of his enemies and John Bolton was just one of them, and so he went after him first. Well, it turns out that the John Bolton investigation started under Biden, so everything in the news was bullshit, unless that's bullshit. But apparently the story is that our intelligence people picked up something when they were looking at some foreign people that they're allowed to do. But if the foreign people communicate with domestic people such as John Bolton, well, then they're going to see both sides of the conversation. So apparently they saw some emails that Bolton sent. And here's the wonderful part. He used an unapproved email system, just like Hillary Clinton. You would think that people would know not to do that, but he used an unclassified email system to send some classified stuff, and it looked like he was sending it to people who were involved in writing his book. So I don't think that there's an accusation that he was selling it to an adversary. Am I wrong about that? I don't believe that there was speculation, but I don't believe there's any evidence that he was selling it to an adversary country. There is evidence that because he was playing loose with it and violating the rules of classified behavior, that he was allowing them to see some classified stuff. But that stuff probably is pretty close to what was in his book. So I don't know how classified it was. If he, if a guy who knows a lot about classified information thought, I'll just send it to my family members and I'll put it in my book. So there's something about this story that we don't understand. And if I had to guess, one of his defenses will be that things were over classified, that would probably be his defense. Because then it doesn't sound like he's a traitor or treasonous. He's just a guy who knows the difference between something that's properly classified and something that isn't. And then maybe he thought, well there's, this is bullshit, you know, this wouldn't hurt anybody. It just happens to be classified. So he may have just thought, I'll just ignore the ones that are obviously over classified. Maybe that might be his defense. It might be a pretty good defense actually. So we'd have to see examples or I would, I'd have to see an example of what's the worst thing he did that our adversary saw. I don't know what. How would you feel about it if there wasn't a single thing that you looked at and said, yeah, that's a problem. You looked at it and said, that's classified. Why is that even classified? So I'm going to, I think I'm going to grade this one as a wait and see. Because the part of this story that doesn't make sense is that somebody like Bolton would play so fast and loose with classified stuff if it could really hurt the United States. I wouldn't be surprised about somebody who, you know, let's say, cut some corners if they knew it wasn't going to hurt anybody. And he would know, he would know if it was going to hurt anybody. So I'm going to wait to see if his defense looks something like, yeah, it was technically classified, but look at it for yourself, I mean you, you judge. Does that look like it would hurt anybody? Maybe it wouldn't, I don't know. So I'm going to be a little bit open minded about this. I'm not a big fan of John Bolton, but the law is the law, you know, you gotta, gotta look at it individually. In the Last Refuge, the publication the Last Refuge talks about how John Bolton's business model was basically selling influence, Information and influence. I guess that's true, but it feels like a little bit of an overstatement because I don't know, selling information and influence, that's just a lobbyist, right? I mean they're all, they're all doing that. So I don't know if that's a statement that you could just hang on that one guy. Anyway, I'm not, I don't want to defend Bolton. I'm just telling you I don't have enough information to form a final opinion on it. So you heard this story that Microsoft was doing some technology support work for the government. Not some, but doing a lot. And some of that included the Department of Defense. And we found out not long ago. And just the news is reminding us that Microsoft was hiring Chinese programmers to manage the Department of Defense cloud systems. And I'm not talking about Chinese Americans. I'm talking about Chinese programmers who live in China and are only Chinese. Now, as you know, every, every Chinese citizen has kind of an obligation to report everything to the government. And these guys were in charge of our Department of Defense cloud system. Do you think there was anything that they had access to that we wouldn't want the Chinese government to know about in the Department of Defense cloud system? Well, so now that we know that Secretary Hagseth is working with Microsoft to make sure they don't use any more of those Chinese nationals, see if they can fix that, I guess. The Trump administration is looking at tightening up our visa rules. Visas, where people from other countries under their visa are in the United States for extended periods, but apparently visas are currently can be open ended. And the idea is to make all of them short term so that they expire after a specific period of time. I don't know about that one. I'd like to hear an argument on both sides of that one. I have no opinion on that, but it does seem consistent with what Trump promised us, which is less immigration. Did you know that the declining birth rates in the United States are mostly because of the political left? So apparently people who are right leaning are having about the same number of babies as they always did? You know, and that makes sense. You know, they value family, blah, blah, blah. And it makes sense also that the left, you know, they have more lgbtq, they, they have more progressives with all kinds of preferences that are outside the family model, let's say that. So it doesn't surprise me. But given as we've described that the number of registrations for voting is now heavily or starting to be heavily tilted toward Republicans, what happens if you add on top of that just birth rates? Don't we have a situation where the Democrat party is in a free fall because if nothing else changed except Republicans had way more babies than Democrats, doesn't that, you know, give you an 18 to 20 years kind of a big advantage? I feel like literally everything is going in the direction of the Republicans. Like everything. Demographics, the reduction in, the reduction in immigration, the redistricting will go in their favor and then all the policies they have all the policy advantages. So it just feels like the Democrats are in a world of hurt like I've never seen before. Well, activist Robby Starbuck, who goes after big companies for their illegal and immoral DEI practices and their over wokeness, reports that he had another big victory with Cracker Barrel. So you know, Cracker Barrel caved on their logo, but the logo wasn't the main events. The logo was just, yeah, you know, you did get rid of the white guy and the logo, but if that were the only thing that happened, it would look like just a logo update. But they also had aggressive woke pages, a lot of gay pride stuff on their website, etc. Now no matter what you think of those things, you may be totally in favor of gay pride, et cetera, but the question of whether it should be shoved down the throats of the employees and the customers is different. So apparently Cracker Barrel removed the offending websites and they are really, they seem legitimately trying to work with the public. And so I'm going to give them some credit. I know a lot of people are saying they won't be happy until that owl wannabe CEO gets fired. Doesn't she remind you of an owl? Like maybe she's a furry. No, she's not. But she reminds me of an owl. I don't know why the glasses, I guess. So good work, Robbie Starbuck gets another big win. According to Remix, Ukraine may have destroyed as much as 20% of Russia's oil refining capacity. So 20%, there are not many things that you can affect by 20% without, you know, being obvious. Allegedly there are now some gas shortages in Russia and I'm not sure you can trust that though might be you could easily imagine there was one gas station that didn't have gas one day and that turned into a bigger story. So I don't know if it's widespread, but interestingly, the Russian refineries that are getting taken out by the Ukrainians have technology in them that is American and there's no other place to get it. So they built their refineries using American parts partly that they can't replace. So they're trying to get sort of lower quality Chinese components to rebuild. So, and I guess Russia did a major attack on Kiev last night. Bigger than normal or ever or something. Here's what I think. If it's true that Ukraine is taking out 20% of the refinery capacity, the question would be what would be the collapse point, the point where Russia really just has to seriously rethink their idea of Being In a war, 20% feels close to a tipping point, but if I had to guess, I'd say 40%. I think if they lose 40% of their refineries, that they're going to have to make peace because they can't lose them all. And if they go from 0 to 20 to 40, and that happens in just, say, a matter of a few weeks, which it looks like it could. If it went to 40, then Russia would know that it could go to 80, and then they're really. So I don't know if what they would do is maybe upgrade their own attacks on Ukraine so that, you know, at least this Mutually assured destruction, something like that. I don't know why Ukraine has any energy left. What? Like, is there some reason that Russia can't destroy all of the energy infrastructure in Ukraine? Because when I see, you know, pictures of Kiev and the lights are on and people are acting like things are kind of normal that day, I think to myself, really? So. So you've got. Russia has been at war for years with all these good missiles, and they haven't taken out 100% of the energy infrastructure in Ukraine. Why? Seems like that would be the most obvious thing to do. Are they unable, or is it actually a bad idea? I'd love to know the answer to that. So that's my prediction. If Kiev can take out 40% of Russia's refineries, that Putin would talk base. 40%. You're all competing against the experts. I love it when the ex. I love it when people tell me that my opinion on things like, you know, wars in other countries is invalid because I'm not an expert. What exactly has been the track record of experts on anything? Anything. You name a topic. Tell me how well the experts did on that topic. Now show me the podcasters who had everything right. There'll always be some, you know, for every topic, it seems like there's always some podcaster who just got it all right from the start, and all the experts got it wrong. Anyway, I guess Russia successfully used an underwater drone to sink a Ukrainian navy vessel. Weirdly, that's the first time. So I guess Russia did not have a. Any great undersea drones, but now they do. So I don't know how the US Navy can survive any kind of a war against a big country, because wouldn't. Wouldn't any reasonably big country just send all these underwater drones and just take out our entire fleet? Can we really defend against that? I mean, I know we have, you know, entire defensive perimeters and stuff at Sea. But could we really defend against that if they sense enough of them at the same time? I don't know. Well, according to a UC Davis study, having a sense of purpose in your life can prevent you from getting dementia. So let's see. The people who have a purpose in their life don't have as much dementia. I'm not sure it's the purpose that's causing the less dementia. Or is it the fact that people who have less dementia can look around and say, you know, I should try to be useful. Everything's working. My brain's still working. I think I'll be useful. I'll volunteer for something. So I'm not so sure this study is telling us what we think. However, I'm a big fan of people being useful. So, yeah, having a sense of purpose is so highly recommended for your mental health. It doesn't surprise me that it might be correlated with your physical health and your, you know, your dementia. So I would say even if you're not positive it works, it's all good if you can find a purpose in life. Popular science tells us that some big companies, I guess there are 4,000 buildings now, have used this technology, which is that they use cheap electricity at night to make a bunch of ice, and then they use the ice to cool the building during the hot summer days. And I guess the technology works. You know, it's. And it saves a bunch of money. You just need room for, you know, an enormous pile of ice somewhere in your basement. I guess, though, it made more sense for the ice to be in the roof, wouldn't it? I don't know. So now you've got ice. They're calling it ice batteries. But it doesn't store electricity. It just stores the coolness, which can be released to supplement your H Vac. Well, Japanese researchers have figured out how to use quantum entanglement to boost robot posture control. Now, that, to you, sounds like, not a big deal, but if you notice how no matter. No matter how good the robot technology is over the last 25 years that the robot is always a little slow. Have you noticed that, like, there's just some lag or something? But apparently, using quantum computing, which can simultaneously. What's the best word? Simultaneously. Deal with lots of possibilities at the same time. So I guess a regular robot has so many moving parts that affect other moving parts. Like, if it's walking, it kind of has to get every part of the robot involved. So it's hard to coordinate all that stuff and to do it quickly. And part of the Reason is that the robot sort of has to predict, all right, if I do this, what do my other parts need to do? And then it sort of tries several predictions and then it picks the best one. And apparently that just will always have a time lag. But if you use quantum computing, it looks at all the possibilities for all of the movement that the robot can do in all of its body all at the same time, and then just picks a good one. Now apparently that would allow your robot to work as fast and efficiently and to move just like a human. Yeah, it would have fewer degrees of movement, but if you saw it, it would just be moving like I'm moving, you know, just sort of casually moving. So if you saw the ping pong robot that's running on a quantum computer, it would just look like a person playing ping pong. So that's kind of cool. I don't know how practical it is to get a quantum computer in a robot because it's not like we have a lot of quantum computer solutions. Well, the US has a jet powered drone. Wingman is basically the size of. It looks like the size of a regular jet, maybe a little smaller. And a pilot would go up and would have a whole bunch of these drones as like protectors that would be flying at the same time, but they would be unmanned. So I presume the pilot would control them. You know, the one pilot would control, you know, his own plane plus or her own plane plus all the drones. And that's new. I haven't seen that before. All right, that story is boring. That's all. That's all I got for you. That's all you needed today. That is all you needed. All right, thanks for joining everybody. Watching. Watching the end of the summer stories is going to be fun. There's going to be a whole bunch of stuff that looks kind of weird and fun and humorous. So keep watching for that. All right, I'm going to talk to the local subscribers. My beloved local subscribers. Yeah, it's beloved time. Oh yeah, you're right. There was a good. Thanks for reminding me. There was a topic that I swore I wrote down in my notes, but I didn't talk about it. So let me do that. Now. There's apparently a Democrat leaning organization that's paying influencers as much as $8,000 a month to say good things about Democrat policies and Democrats. And again, they're trying to use money to do what the Republicans do without money, which is, hey, Joe Rogan, do you have common sense? Yes. Would you like to say some Common sense things about common sense things. Yes. And then you've got Joe Rogan, but they need to pay a Joe Rogan. So. So they named David Pakman as one of the people allegedly who may be getting payments for being on one side. Now, if I were a left leaning influencer, I'm pretty sure I would take that money and I would just do whatever I was going to do anyway. Because if you're left leaning, you're always going to say good stuff about Democrats, you might as well take their money. So I can't see that this will possibly work. Like, it seems like, you know, they got nothing else to try, so they might as well try something. But I don't think, I don't think any of them are going to break through and change anybody's minds. So. And I have to tell you, because I know some of you probably wonder, I have never been approached by anybody who wanted to try to pay me to influence what I say. I've never had that conversation. I don't know anybody who's even in the business of paying Republicans or right leaning people or just Trump supporters to say good things about Trump. It's not necessary because there's so many influencers who are already there and they've got their own business model and they don't need to be paid. The fact that. Let me tell you what I'll compare this to. If you see a local restaurant that used to only serve lunch and dinner and then suddenly they announced that they're going to do brunch on weekends, that's a restaurant that's going out of business. Because adding brunch is sort of like a Hail Mary. Because you would have to be like the most wildly successful brunch place to even make a penny for brunch. So when you see that, you don't say to yourself, wow, that's a restaurant that's really making it all work. They went from two meals to three. They're expanding, they're getting better. Nope, that's a restaurant that is going to be out of business in one year. I've seen it a million times, even with my own restaurant. But when you see that somebody is paying influencers to make sure that they say things on your team and the other team has never needed to pay an influencer and wouldn't even think about it, I'll bet you nobody has even had that conversation on the right. It's unnecessary. How hard is it to get people to come out against crime? Turns out, not that hard. How hard is it to get a Republican to say, you know what? I'm glad that that border is closed. You don't have to pay me a penny. I'll do that for free. So when you see Democrats having or thinking that they have to pay somebody to agree with them, that's like the restaurant that's adding brunch to their other two meals. It's sort of a reliable indicator that they're just circling the drain and they don't have an idea. So anyway, thanks for reminding me. I was going to talk about that and somehow didn't. All right. We're going to go private now with the beloved members of locals and the rest of you. Thanks for coming. I'll see you again tomorrow, same time, same place.