Loading summary
Transcript5 lines
- [00:00]
A
You are. Hello. Come on in. I was just checking on your stocks. Well, if you have Tesla, that's up a little bit. Otherwise it's kind of flat. Would you like to have a show? Yes. You're used to it, you like it, and you're going to get it. Probably the best thing that'll happen to you all day. 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 of elevating your experience up to levels that no one can even comprehend with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker, shell stein, 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. The end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens now. Well, it looks like everything's working, the sound, etc. I've been tinkering with my setup, so you never know what could happen. Well, here's a tech story that I don't know if I believe looks like a prank, but allegedly, there's a company called Alter Ego as a little wearable that you put around, like, sort of like headphones, except doesn't cover your ears. Sort of like the. You know, the kind that just wrap around the back of your head. Anyway, they allege that that thing can read your thoughts well enough to know what you would like to be sending to a screen with almost perfect precision. And happens kind of quickly. And he showed this demo of a guy who was wearing one, and he was writing an email by thinking what he wants in the email. Now, how in the world can they pick out the words in your head that you want to send from the words in your head that you don't want to send? And I thought to myself, how does that work with people who have a conversation in their head all the time? The way I organize my thoughts to make sure that they make sense is I put them in sentences and I think of them as full, spoken sentences. And I'll keep rearranging them until they make sense when I hear them, because it's sort of like I'm listening to myself now. How in the world. They allege that they can detect. They allege that they can detect the thoughts. If I can say it right, I'm probably not saying it right, but something like Just when you're going to verbalize a thought. So they get it when you've decided to verbalize it, but they won't get it prior to you deciding to verbalize it. But in this case, you don't actually verbalize it. It just picks up your intention to verbalize it. Do you believe that there's a thing that can attach to the outside of your head? You know, like little headphone things, little sensors that would be currently sensitive enough and smart enough to determine what you intend to say? Does that sound even a little bit likely that that's true? I would love. I would love to know that it is true. That'd be kind of cool. But I'm going to go with nope. Let's grade that one. Nope. But like I say, yeah, I would love to be wrong. So if that's a real thing, really cool, but nope. All right. Allegedly, OpenAI is planning to make a feature length animated movie that would debut at the Cannes Film Festival, and it'd be done in nine months and a budget of $30 million. Do you believe that they'll be able to do that? And if they can do it, does that mean that the tool would allow you to do it? Because seems like there'd be a massage storage element. We're asked to store what it's already done to make sure that what it does next is compatible with all that. Do you think that will be available to the average person or are they going to demonstrate that? If you want the studio model. Oh, that's. The studio model is $10 million a year. Because you can make so much money making movies, maybe. I am skeptical that you'll be able to use the. The off the shelf OpenAI to make yourself a movie anytime soon. Someday, but no time soon. So we'll see. That's pretty ambitious. I like it. Well, Elon Musk has decided to make the Code on X for recommending what it recommends to you open source. So people who know how to look at code can look at it and say, hey, now I know why it doesn't show me James Wood or whatever it's allegedly hiding from people. And why does it show me other things? So I love that. That is a solid Elon Musk play that feels sort of uniquely him, you know, something you wouldn't expect from other people. And I like it. So speaking of Tesla, yesterday, they had a big announcement about what's called the megapack, which is there are big battery structures that they sell into power utility grids. So it become part of an existing grid, and it would store power when it was cheap to make or possible to make and use it when it was needed later. So apparently I didn't know this, but apparently they're making billions of dollars on this line of business. And that's part of Tesla. So I remember hearing Adam, or saying Adam Townsend, he did a post several years back in which he said that Tesla was actually a energy company in disguise as a car company. And I don't know if I buy that 100% or that he even meant it 100%. But how big could that business be? I mean, if they're the top or even number two in the business, putting in enormous battery packs, then the interesting thing is that he's got a company, the megapack battery thing, that would be benefiting from AI, because AI is going to require that, you know, every form of energy and saving energy and storing energy becomes super valuable because we can't get enough of it. AI will be sucking up all that energy. So he's got a very compatible company there. And at the same time, speaking of compatible companies, his SpaceX company is doing a deal to buy a whole bunch of spectrum from EchoStar, which apparently will be key to turning their satellites, because SpaceX is a very compatible company with Starlink, the network of Elon Musk satellites that are around the Earth already. They were launched by SpaceX. So those are the two most compatible companies you can imagine. Except if you could have a satellite company, what would be the best thing you could introduce next? A phone that happens to work, or you work with somebody else on phone service all over the globe. And it looks like that's what he's going to do. So he's going to have batteries all over the globe and AI is going to drive that demand. He's going to have, or he has, he's already got satellites all over the world and they're not far away from turning that into worldwide phone service that would compete with everybody, apparently. The speeds would be great, the latency would be low. And he's really, he's looking to take cell phones. I mean, just, just even imagine the enormity of that business. And Musk is sort of year after year, he's just building these assets. They can walk right up to the domain of cell phone industry and possibly take over the entire industry, because he's built exactly the right compatible assets, from rockets to satellites to batteries, you know, which you need for phones. So. And then, of course, they have access to the best engineers and it all kind of kind of comes together, doesn't it?
- [10:36]
B
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 of 45 for 3 month plan equivalent to 15 per month required new customer offer for first 3 months only speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy taxes and fees extra.
- [11:05]
A
C mintmobile.com Anyway, there's a ex engineer at Meta, or he was at Meta, who claims that WhatsApp, the app that's owned by Meta, had some privacy problems. And specifically what he said was there were about 1500. Listen to this. He claims that there were 1500 WhatsApp engineers that had full access to private user data with no logs, no audits, and no way to know if anything was taken. Now, user data would include their messages, right? So there were 1500 people who all they had to do was want to and they could look at all your private messages in what you thought was your super private message thing. Remember what I tell you about privacy? The only protection you have is to be uninteresting. That's it. So there were presumably most of the millions of people who used WhatsApp had nobody looked at their messages because there was no reason to. They're not very interesting. But if they had any reason at all to look at your messages and let me just put you into the room, let's say you're one of those engineers and if this allegation is true, I'm not sure it is, right? So I'm not going to take it at face value. But what if it is? What if it's true that there were 1500 people who could, anytime they want, look into Everybody's messages on WhatsApp and nobody would catch them and they knew that. What would happen when they get a divorce? What would happen when they get into a relationship that breaks up? Do you think all 1500 of those engineers said to themselves, you know, I could just look at all of her messages back as long as I wanted to. But nah, nah, I'm not going to do that. I'm not the kind of guy who would find out something really, really useful and have no risk whatsoever of ever getting caught. I'm not that kind of guy. Or am I? So, yeah, if these Allegations are true. I would say that would be something to worry about. Apparently there was some massive power outage in Berlin this morning. 50,000 homes without electricity. There were two high voltage masts, big artificial towers that caught on fire. It's a suspected arson. Attacked? Well, I would think so if there are two of them. Unless they were right next to each other. You would think it would be a pretty big coincidence if two of them caught on fire. I would even say it's weird if one of them catches on fire because how much burnable material is in a. Is in a cell phone tower? I don't know. Or a high voltage tower. Either way, it can't be much. It's not like it's made of wood. So, yeah, I believe they all need a Tesla powerwall to get past that kind of risk. Well, you know that Greta Thunberg is now an activist about the Palestinian cause and she's on her second cruise, if you can call it that. She's on a flotilla. They're going over there to protest Israel's treatment of the Gazans or something like that. But apparently she got to Tunisia in the. In Tunisian waters. She may have. And this is disputed, so we don't know if this is true, but allegedly a drone attacked their boat. Now, I think it caused something on fire, they say, but it didn't kill anybody. Nobody was injured, so that's good. But there is some dispute. The Tunisian authorities say there was no drone hitting your boat. Somebody dropped a cigarette on some life preservers. So they were either one of two things. They were either attacked by another country in a bold raid in which they sent a drone from a long distance, or they had somebody stationed there waiting for Greta and then they tried to assassinate her without leaving a trace by using their sophisticated drones. So that's one possibility. The other possibility is that Greta was taking a smoke break and she was, she was just out by the life preservers. You know, I'm having a real good time protesting this Gaza situation. Flick. And then she flicks her lit cigarette into the life preservers and the next thing you know, we better tell people that was a drone. So we don't know what happened. My point is the fog of war makes it impossible to know how much of that story is true, if any of it. Well, you know the story about Anthropic, the AI company that got sued by a bunch of. A bunch of authors. And the authors, you know, banded together as a class and sued and they won. And so the authors were going to split up $1.5 billion. That was the judgment. And who knows how much their lawyers were going to get? But what would be typical class action? Does the lawyer get or the lawyer firm? Do they get a third? What is typical? So if it had been, let's say, 1.5 billion and lawyers get a third, you know, they'd be looking at half a billion dollars for some lawyering, but apparently it had to be overseen by a judge. And the federal judge that was going to oversee it looked at the deal that the lawyers made and said, really? This doesn't even look like you did this deal for the benefit of the authors. It looks like maybe you did the deal for the benefit of the lawyers. Because it would not be irrational for a lawyer to say, seriously, they're offering us 1.5 billion. I don't know. Have you guys done the math? That's $100 million a piece. All we have to do is say yes, and we will get a hundred million dollars apiece. We will never have to worry about money again. All you have to do is say yes. Or you could fight that case for months and maybe it would get appealed and maybe they'd win, maybe the other side win, but you'd fight to try to get more for the authors. Because if the authors win with this measly $1.5 billion award, it might first of all set the price low for other lawsuits for other entities. But it doesn't work out too much per author. So an author would lose their entire intellectual property for all practical purposes, and in return they would get, I don't know, $1,000 if they were well established. So the judge just said nope and put a pause on it. I don't know where it goes next, but the federal judge didn't think it looked like a proper deal. I don't know, maybe your sausage McMuffin with egg didn't change your receipt did. The sausage McMuffin with egg extra value meal includes a hash brown and a small coffee for just $5 only at McDonald's for a limited time.
- [19:45]
B
Prices and participation may vary.
- [19:50]
A
So, you know, you've noticed that I've been ignoring the story about the. The Ukrainian refugee woman who got stabbed to death in Charlotte when she was on the light rail train. Well, it turns out that now it's. It's morphed from a crime story. No, Gary, off the Keyboard has morphed from a crime story into a big political story. Because now the. Let's call it the anti Trump press of the world has decided that the way the people on the right, the MAGA supporters are talking about it somewhat obsessively, is that it's obviously kind of racist. And so CNN had a big hit piece on that. And I wasn't going to talk about it because I don't do crime. But now that it's sort of a political thing and a persuasion thing and, you know, it's now slopped into my domain, I'll give you my thoughts on it. Number one, if she had not been a hot blonde, would we be talking about it? You tell me, if she had not been a hot blonde, literally some kind of a model, I think, would we even be talking about this? Don't people get stabbed and murdered kind of often? You know, way more than, you know, because it's not somebody pretty and they're not from Ukraine and it's not a black attacker and a white victim. But if she is pretty and we've got video, that that makes a big difference and it fits into a narrative that a lot of people are seeing in the larger world. You know, beyond this one, one thing, there's a lot of discussion about the crime rate and who's committing the crimes. And, you know, is that something that needs to be addressed? So it kind of fits the rights narrative perfectly. And it's, it's just made for memeing and it's just made to be viral because of her looks. So the, you know, the anti MAGA people, they're doing their best to try to figure out how it can be racist. And I do believe, I've seen it myself, that in the comments, not so much what the big influencers are saying. That doesn't sound racist to me. But a lot of the comments are flat out as racist as you could possibly be. Now you could argue whether that needs to be stopped or not. And you could also argue, is it racist? If you're talking statistical. Right, so that's what people would say. It's like, well, if I'm just talking about this statistical risk, that's not that racist, is it? But there are other people who are using certain language that you would. Most of you, I think we would agree is over the line. But that's the real world. In the real world, there are people who are going to go over every line and you see that in a line. So I would imagine that your feed would be different from mine, which would be different from everybody else's. I may see more of it than you do, we believe, but I'm not positive this is true. So there's still a little fog of war in this story. But is it true? Because I haven't seen it and I wouldn't know if it was real if I saw it, that there was a video that came out after the main murder video on the train that showed the murderer saying, quote, they got that white girl, which would strongly suggest that he had a racial motive, even if he's a crazy person. So, you know, that's, that's good enough to throw it in that, you know, does it prove something about the bigger world box? Personally, I saw this as more like a crazy person situation, but I saw Greg Guffel's monologue. I was watching that. And he points out that for a crazy person, he certainly made a lot of, let's say, sane judgments about how to get away and you know, how to plan it and you know that. So, so it's, it's always a mixed bag. It's not so crazy that you're running around naked throwing your feces, but they're pockets of non craziness. So what do you do with that? So obviously race was part of the story and remains part of the story. And then Trump seizing on the situation because he, he's anti crime, as you know. And so now CNN says he's seizing on the moment because it's, you know, it's getting a lot of attention. So he wants us maybe get in front of it. And anyway, I guess he's threatening to withhold federal dollars from the city of Charlotte because of that murder. And I don't know who said this. I saw a quote online, but the quote might have been Trump. But somebody said, I guarantee that if I find what I think I'm going to find, they're not going to have your federal tax dollars going to their public transportation system. Zero, none. So there's some allegation, but I'm not entirely sure who's making it, unless it's Trump, that they know something about Charlotte that's corrupt or dirty. Now, have you noticed the pattern yet that every local government is corrupt or it seems that way, except, correct me if I'm wrong, it feels like it's just always Democrat government. Yeah, Every story I know it's not literally true. They're obviously Republicans who have been arrested and indicted and stuff for crimes. It's not like it doesn't exist. But the news that I see isn't something like 10 to 1 in one direction. And what do you do about that? It's like ten to one, isn't it? All right. And Then the, then that murder is bringing into the larger conversation the following statistics that I see literally every day on social media. I don't know if these are exactly true or true enough, but it's what people are saying. So that's the important part. But I keep seeing on social media people saying black people make up 13% of the US population, but they claim, and I don't know if this is true, that Black people commit 56% of the murders. Now is that true? And then do you, do you further calculate how many of them were other black people who were the victims? Because it would be. Mostly right. Like, would it be three quarters of their victims would also be black or more. More than three quarters. Right. Then there's a whole bunch of other statistics. The murder rate among black people is six to eight times higher than among white people, blah, blah. So that's the sort of stuff that's going around social media and Elon Musk is getting into it by saying that a small group of criminals are the repeat violent offenders. Now that is a far less racial way to approach this. So I think Elon Musk is probably the, you know, going on the most productive path because as soon as it gets into race, nothing happens. Everybody just hates everybody. So you could just forget that. But if you were to focus on the repeat offenders, that's purely a behavioral thing and it only kicks in if, objectively speaking, somebody's been convicted a certain number of times for a certain number of things, certain type of things. So. But the vast majority of all crime is committed by people who have at least three prior arrests. So these are pretty measurable things. So Elon saying, if we look at that and lock up the repeat criminals, our crime situation would be vastly improved. I remember when that was a, that was a thing in California. I think it got reversed. But for a time there was that three strikes thing. And people argued before that was implemented that if you locked up the people who did the vast majority of the crimes, you know, the three strike people, they actually argued that if you locked up in jail and kept them there forever, the people who did 80% of all the crimes, that it wouldn't change the crime rate. That was actually what smart people were saying in public in their arguments. Well, it's not going to change the crime rate just because you put the people who do all the crimes in jail forever. And I used to jokingly say so. Let me see if I understand your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that if they lock up 100% of the people who are doing 80% of the crimes, that the crime rate won't go down, but rather the people who were not planning to do any crimes would increase the number of crimes they were committing beyond what they had planned to make up for the repeat criminals being in jail. That's how you would get a balance and nothing would change. Right. And the conversation would quickly turn into insult because when people realize how dumb their opinion is, that's not really an opinion opinion, is it? That's really just somebody's a dumb fuck. People who are in jail don't commit crimes outside of jail. I mean, unless they have access to a telephone, I guess, or a henchman to do their work, like a crime boss. But generally speaking, if you're in jail, it does stop you from murdering mostly, except in jail. Well, if you're wondering why are some communities more dangerous than others and you don't have enough of a racist opinion about why, let me give you a, a lesser racist opinion about why some places are more dangerous. Apparently, according to Neuroscience news, aggression is contagious, meaning that if you observe your parents in particular, so it's more a family thing. Observing strangers doesn't have the same effect. It must have some. But if you observed family members being physical, you were more likely to be that way yourself. But I went immediately to Grok and I said, can you tell me Grok is violence and aggression? Are those things ever hereditary? Because it would make sense to me that if they were hereditary, not 100%, but at least in any way, that it might not be because you're watching your family be aggressive. It might be because you all have the aggressive gene. So it seems to you that maybe the cause is that you're observing it or you're around it. But it could be, according to Grok, that there are some people who think that aggression is about 50% inherited. So the studies of twins, I guess 50% of variants in aggressive behavior might be genetic. So here's my suggestion for fixing things. If the people who are being violent are being perpetuated by seeing their family being violent, and it becomes this cycle, maybe the best thing you could do, because it's hard to fix that directly. I mean, what are you going to do? People spend time with their family. How are you going to stop that? So if you can't do anything about it, I've often wondered if the best solution isn't for people to apply for, call it a grant or a scholarship to move out of whatever bad place has a bad example that's being set for Them, not just in this regard, but someplace safe where they can, you know, really concentrate on school or whatever. Don't you think that that would be one way to save a failing neighborhood? Literally, to let people say, all right, give me your best argument. If you're really serious about, you know, having a successful, honest life, write us a little thing or send us a video, and maybe we'll sponsor you or a number of people will sponsor you to get enough money to move to a place that has lower crime, better schools. So it would be great if the people who have the ability to thrive in a different atmosphere had the opportunity to get there, and they wouldn't always be able to do it themselves. So just an idea. Well, there's a Chicago alderman who was ripping into both the governor and the mayor, Johnson Pritzker, about the topic of Trump offering aid to Chicago, Newsmax is reporting this. Michael Katz, and he's basically saying, and he's obviously a Democrat as well, but he's on their team. And even he's saying, no, we got a little bit too much crime here. Maybe you should accept his help. So if you're wondering if reasonable common sense people would agree with Trump, well, there you go. Sounds like he's a very reasonable alderman. But here's a question that I ask that you might be asking yourself. How much should I care about crime in Chicago if I don't live in Chicago and the people who do live there are electing people who allow this much crime and probably could do something that is, let Trump come in with some extra help, they probably could do something to lower it, but for whatever reason, their priorities are not that. So am I supposed to care a lot? I mean, I very much wanted Trump to move the national guard into Washington, D.C. even though I don't live there, because it's my capital, right? It's my capital. Of course I want that cleaned up. Of course that represents me. But if the people in Chicago don't want the help, should we really force it upon them? I mean, they do have the ability to vote in people who would change that, and they apparently are not choosing that path. At what point does it just their problem? So I don't know how much of my tax dollars I want to spend sending the military or any form of the military into Chicago. It's not that it wouldn't work. I think it would work, and I think politically probably be a total winner. But I don't know if it's because of my empathy. Don't ask me to have more empathy. Than they have for themselves. That doesn't make sense. I should have maybe equal to, but not more empathy than they have for themselves. Anyway, I guess Trump's Trump and the team won another court victory. So now a judge is going to allow the ice, I guess, to sweep up immigrants and raids. And partially, they can use the race of the people as part of their decision making, but it can't be all of it. So if the only reason they stopped somebody to find out their status was because they look like they were Hispanic, that would not be allowed. That would be pure racism. But the court has allowed. The Supreme Court has now allowed that. It would be one of the elements you might look at. So, for example, if they were Hispanic and standing at the Home Depot, I'm making that up. And speaking only Spanish, I don't know, there might be some other elements, but you could use it as one variable, but not the variable. I don't know how I feel about that. So moving on. Apparently Nepal is having some issues. The parliament building is on fire and the public had revolted. Except there's. There's something a little bit weird about this Nepal situation, as in why it happened. So. So I guess it started because the country was trying to ban some fake social media accounts, but the issue of banning some fake. Fake. Right. Fake social media accounts, that turned into the public being mad about corruption and digital censorship, that turned into riots in the street. And then the. It looks like, you know, maybe the country has fallen. I can't tell. But here's the thing. When you hear that Nepal has, you know, done this street protest against the government and burned down a building and dragged down some of the politicians, I don't know what happened to them, but some of them got dragged out. Do you assume that that happens spontaneously or do you believe that there's just no such thing anywhere of a, you know, this kind of organized thing, unless there's some external source, maybe a color revolution kind of a situation, some foreign country, maybe, maybe some intelligence people within the country, you know, who knows? But I'm way beyond imagining that this kind of stuff happens on its own. So I would have some questions about who might be. Who might have been involved behind the scenes, if you know what I mean. Anyway, so according to a post I saw on X by Wall Street Apes, there's some independent investigation about Gavin Newsom's association to some NGOs, which allegedly. All these Democrat conspiracies and alleged corruption, things were always so complicated where he allegedly was doing something called behested payments. So this would be legal. So allegedly, somebody like Newsom could go to a bunch of rich donors and say, hey, I behest you to put a bunch of money into these NGOs. It's a charity, it's really good. And then the rich people go, oh, got it. Wink, wink. So if I put a bunch of money into the charities, then you'll be good to me when I need a favor? Well, I can't say that. But if you put a bunch of money into these charities, they sure would be good for those charities. And then you work it out with the charities, or you've chosen them because they're working with you, where they say, if you can get us a bunch of money from a bunch of rich people in return for you giving them favors, we'll make sure that a bunch of this money benefits you directly or indirectly. So the allegation is that $400 million have flowed through this process, and it's hard to imagine that Governor Newsom didn't give anybody any favors for being a conduit. Allegedly. Don't know if any of this is true, but if he really were the conduit for $400 million flowing through, it's hard to believe he didn't get a taste of that. Maybe not directly, but through circuitous roots, which is how they do it. That's how they do it. So, again, I remind you that all local government and maybe all government is corrupt. So Health and Human Services is going to release a report that seems to tie Tylenol use in pregnant women with autism. But there is, apparently there's some conflict in the science. There's some science that suggests there is a link and some science that suggests there's not. So what would you and I assume about that? We should assume that we don't know anything because there's some science that says there's a link, some says it isn't. We. We don't really trust either one of them. So I don't trust any data or certainly any study like that. I'm way beyond being able to trust them. But at the same time, at the same time, let's see what else is happening. President Trump, I guess he reposted a video on social media that linked vaccines to autism. So according to modernity is reporting that. So it looks like if you read the tea leaves, the government is going to suggest that there, you know, more than one thing that might be behind autism. And maybe they're not going to say, we know 100% sure what it is. Or how much each of these contribute, they might say, well, as far as we can narrow it down, it might be these things. But I do trust that if any big decisions are made about vaccines, I do trust that that would be based on data that we can all see. So people will have a chance to say, you read that data wrong or they collected that data wrong. So that's coming. All right, Andrew Cuomo, who, as you know, is running for mayor of New York against Mayor Adams and the communist guy, mom dummy and Curtis Sliwa. So Andrew Cuomo, I just watched him on a video, and he said, Democrats want someone to defend them against President Trump. I am that person because I have done that. Now, is it my imagination, or does Andrew Cuomo have the easiest job in the world, which would be to become mayor of New York? Given who he's running against, shouldn't he easily be able to win this? It feels like he should, but here's what he's doing wrong. Mom Dummy comes in and he talks about affordability, and people go, oh, you have my attention. That's exactly what I'm worrying about. Cuomo comes in, and he's making it about attacking Trump. Now, I don't argue that people are asking him to attack Trump. I'm sure they are. But really, he doesn't see that. That's not the winning message. The winning messages, what mom Donnie's doing, he says, you got a problem. I have a magic plan to deal with your biggest problem. So it's just jaw dropping and head shaking that when he's talking about why you should make him the mayor, it's to fight Trump. That's just the worst reason anybody ever had to run for mayor. Well, there's a rumor going around that Scott Besant, Treasury Secretary, and Bill Pulte, who is head of the Federal Housing Finance, whatever it is, I can never remember the name of the organization. Freddie and Fannie, and apparently they went to a dinner and Scott Besant threatened to punch Pulte in the face, and he wanted to step outside and fight him. So. And then reportedly. But I don't believe anything about this story at this point. We never know the real context of these things. Reportedly, Bill wasn't sure if he was serious, but he said he was serious about punching him. And so I don't know how the dinner ended or who picked up the check, but that sounds pretty bad. I guess Besant was complaining because he believed that Bill Pulte had said something negative to him about to Trump. I don't know what that was allegedly. But I don't know how to feel about it, because it would depend entirely upon what it was. He may or may not have a sense of Trump. You could certainly imagine that it could have been something really important that Trump would need to know, in which case, you know, Pulte had to do it. That would just be part of his job. But you could. You could imagine that Bessent wouldn't like it no matter what it was. So I like Bill too much to have an opinion on this. So I'm just going to say that we'll never know exactly what happened in that situation, but I don't think Bill's going to be talking to anybody about anything important unless it's important. So we'll never know what that's about. So there's a new laser defense weapon to shoot down drones, and it's better than ever before. It can kill 50 drones a minute, which actually doesn't sound like that many. 50 drones a minute if they're sending a swarm of a thousand drones. Unless it's the really big ones that don't come, that don't swarm, I don't know. But here's what I was wondering as I was reading that story. What are the odds that drones become the main weapon of choice at the same time that lasers finally become cost effective to shoot them down? Is that kind of weird that those two technologies that have both been out there for a while, you know, years and years, but they both kind of matured at the same time, that just when the drones can do all kinds of things and there could be thousands of them in the sky, you know, autonomously attacking you is exactly the same time that we've built all these deadly lasers that can shoot them out of the sky. What are the odds that those two technologies are peaking at about the same time? It's weird. It's a simulation. Well, one of the Russian advisors to Putin accused the US and accused Trump of thinking about using crypto to wipe out our debt. Now, if you like me, you said, wait, how would you do that? How would you wipe out $35 trillion worth of debt with crypto without making things worse? Now, you might remember that I've asked that question a bunch of times, but not saying how it would happen, but asking if there's any way to make it happen. And I, the answer that I got from everyone is, no, you can't, like, do it with one magic trick of crypto. You might be able to make crypto your only money, and then inflate away the value of the dollar over time, and maybe that's literally the only way we'll ever get out of it. So that might happen, but. So I went to Grok and I put that story in there and I said, is that something that could ever work? And Grok said, not really. So Grok went into all the details, but basically said no. Every way that you could go with that, this is me paraphrasing it, but every way you could go with that with some kind of clever crypto thing would make something way worse and, you know, would be unacceptable. So, no, that probably won't happen. But you can see why they're afraid of it because the US has played around with the gold standard, for example, in the past. Well, Politico is talking about France's government collapsing. A lot of collapsing happening lately. So the Joshua Berlinger is writing about this. So I guess Macron has to appoint now is fifth prime minister in less than two years and there's protests and things are falling apart. So I don't think, I hate to say it, but I don't really see a way that France can survive, do you? No, I suppose that would be true of everybody in the medium run, but I don't see, I don't see a path. I hate to say that because, you know, I'm pretty optimistic and I generally don't buy into the, oh, this country is going down the drain. You know, we've talked about, you know, I don't think China's really about to go down the drain. I don't think Russia's really about to go down the drain. And I don't think France is going down the drain this year, but it seems like just demographically they're in an unrecoverable situation, but we'll see. And I guess Macron is mad at the US for barring visas for most Palestinians. Like, that's the biggest problem. He's got 75 cities in lockdown and he's worried about Palestinian visas. All right. In other news, Israel has reportedly said yes to Trump's suggestion for a Gaza ceasefire. So that would make you think, Ah, we're 50% toward peace? Because at least one side said yes. Except that what Israel is requesting and what I guess Trump is requesting, requesting would be too weak, demanding is that they give up all the hostages and lay down their arms. Now, if you were Hamas, do you think you're going to give up your hostages and lay down your arms? Because what happens to you the minute that that happens? It's not like part of the deal is for safe passage or something. It's not like you're going to get a, you know, you're going to be pardoned. 100% of the people who have a weapon and are in a tunnel and are working for Hamas, 100% of them are going to be in jail or killed. Why exactly would they want to hurry that up while they have hostages? So to me, it's easy for Israel to say, we will accept your total surrender so that we can do what we want with you. So I get why they say yes, but how in the world is Hamas ever going to say yes to that? Well, unless they have no other choice and everything's worse and that's it looks like that's where things are heading. It's going to get a lot worse. But just before I got on, apparently there was some kind of big explosion in Qatar, or Qatar, as you like to say, in Doha. Some say it was an Israeli assassination strike as senior Hamas officials. But I heard that just before I went live. So by now we probably have better information. But we're still in fog of war. So I wouldn't believe anything about that story yet. I definitely wouldn't believe that it was an Israeli attack yet. It totally could have been. I wouldn't rule it out, but too soon. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. So I wouldn't trust any of the reports coming out. But if it were true that Israel figured this was a good time to take out their leadership in Qatar, well, there's probably no, no bad time to do it. And San Mateo, one of my local airports here is launching the first flying car with vertical takeoff. It's going to test flights at Half Moon Bay and Hollister. And you could, you could buy one for, or you could put in a pre order for your flying car at $300,000. Now, I think you know that, that there have been news stories about flying cars for 30 years and we're always right around the corner. Oh, we're so close. You are going to have a flying car any minute now. Well, maybe it's happening. Maybe we'll see. But if it does, can we agree on one thing? If we get our flying cars, that is the golden age. Everybody agree? I think that would settle it. We still need to work on our affordability, but in many other ways, golden age. All right, ladies and gentlemen, sorry about my cat related disturbances. If it sounded a little choppy over here, I was fighting a cat with one hand and using my brain to entertain you. With my other hand. All right. That didn't work. Flying cars will be a disaster. It does seem like it would be a problem. Unless the flying cars are self driving by law. I can imagine that it would keep them out of trouble. All right, thank you, Sergio. I'm going to say a few words privately to the beloved members of locals. The rest of you, I'll see you tomorrow. Same time, same place. I enjoy it every morning, so make sure you come back. I'd miss you if you didn't.