Elon Musk and Joe Rogan dive into fatherhood, AI parallels in child development, and Musk’s decision to prioritize Mars and energy over possessions. Neuralink’s one-inch brain implant could restore sight, hearing, and motor function within a year, though full AI integration remains distant. Musk challenges COVID-19 panic, citing lower mortality rates than WHO claims and questioning lockdowns that delayed critical medical care. They critique biased media, like CNN, and advocate for scrutinizing hospital incentives in death reporting. The episode ends with Tesla’s Roadster teases, martial arts insights, and Rogan’s gratitude—highlighting Musk’s relentless focus on innovation amid personal milestones. [Automatically generated summary]
I mean, also, I've spent a lot of time on AI and neural nets, and so you can sort of see the kind of the brain develop, which is, you know, an AI neural net is trying to simulate what a brain does, basically.
So when you're programming artificial intelligence or you're working with artificial intelligence, are they specifically trying to mimic the developmental process of a human brain?
I mean, the essential elements of an AI neural net are really very similar to a human brain neural net.
It's having the multiple layers of neurons and back propagation.
All these things are what your brain does.
You have a layer of neurons that goes through a series of intermediate steps to ultimately cognition, and then it'll reverse those steps and go back and forth and go all over the place.
I would imagine, like, the thought of programming something that is eventually going to be smarter than us, that one day it's going to be like, why did you do it that way?
Like, when artificial intelligence becomes sentient, they're like, oh, you tried to mimic yourself.
Now, you're in the middle of this strange time where you're selling your houses, you say you don't want any material possessions, and I've been seeing all that and I've been really excited to talk to you about this.
I mean, not everyone, but for sure in recent years, billionaire has become a pejorative.
It's like that's a bad thing, which I think doesn't make a lot of sense in most cases.
If you basically Organized a company.
How does this wealth arise?
If you organize people in a better way to produce products and services that are better than what existed before, and you have some ownership in that company, then that essentially gives you the right to allocate more capital.
There's a conflation of consumption and capital allocation.
Let me say Warren Buffett, for example, and to be totally frank, I'm not his biggest fan, but he does a lot of capital allocation.
And he reads a lot of sort of annual reports of companies and all the accounting, and it's pretty boring, really.
And he's trying to figure out, does Coke or Pepsi deserve more capital?
I mean, it's kind of a boring job, if you ask me.
It's still a thing that's important to figure out.
Is a company deserving of more or less capital?
Should that company grow or expand?
Is it making products and services that are Better than others or worse.
If a company is making compelling products and services it should get more capital and if it's not it should get less or go out of business.
Well there's a big difference too between someone who's making an incredible amount of money designing and engineering fantastic products versus someone who's making an incredible amount of money by investing in companies or moving money around the stock market or Doing things along those lines.
It's a different thing.
And to put them all in the same category seems – it's very simple.
Well, I think that people are kind of learning that, particularly because of this whole pandemic and this relationship that we have with China, that there's a lot of value into making things, into making things here.
I mean, all the cabinets are, like, handmade, and they're, like, odd shapes, and there's, like, doors to nowhere and strange, like, corridors and tunnels and odd paintings on the wall, and, yeah.
Well, I had one house and then the Gene Wilder house right across the road from me, from my main house, and it was going to get sold and then torn down and turned into, you know, be a big construction zone for three years.
And I was like, well, I think I'll buy it and preserve the spirit of Gene Wilder and not have a giant construction zone.
And then I started having some privacy issues where lots of people would just come to my house and start climbing over the walls and stuff.
I'm like, man.
So then I started to like, bought a house, some of the houses around my house.
And then I thought at one point, well, you know, it'd be cool to build a house.
So then I acquired some properties at the top of Samara Road, which has got a great view.
And it's like, okay, well, these Some bunch of sort of small older houses.
They're gonna get torn down anyway.
I was like, well, you know, if I collect these like little houses, then I can build something, you know, I don't know, artistic, like a, you know, dream house type of thing.
But then I was like, man, does it really make sense for me to spend time designing and building a house and I'd be real, you know, get like OCD on the little details and the design?
Or should I be allocating that time to getting us to Mars?
I should probably do the latter.
So...
You know, like what's more important, Mars or a house?
Well, I think I do have high productivity, but even with that, there's still some opportunity cost of time.
And allocating time to building a house, even if it was a really great house, still is not a good use of time relative to developing the rockets necessary to get us to Mars and helping solve sustainable energy.
SpaceX and Tesla are by far the most amount of brain cycles.
Boring Company does not take less than 1% of brain cycles, and then there's Neuralink, which is I don't know, maybe it was like 5%.
We were talking about that last time and you were trying to figure out when it was actually going to go live, when it's actually going to be available.
And when you do this, is there any test that you have to do before you do something like this to see what percentage of people's bodies are going to reject these things?
I mean, you can think of it like people put in, you know, heart monitors and, you know, things for epileptic seizures and deep brain stimulation, obviously, like, you know, artificial hips and knees and that kind of thing.
So the probability of, I mean, like, it's well known, like, what will cause rejection, what will not.
It's definitely harder when you've got something that is sort of reading and writing neurons that's generating a current pulse and reading current pulses.
That's a little harder than, say, a passive device.
But it's still very doable.
There are people who have primitive devices in their brains right now.
Well, for version 1 of the device, it would be basically implanted in your skull.
But it would be flush with your skull.
So you basically take out a chunk of skull.
You put the electrode, you insert the electrode threads very carefully into the brain and then you, you know, Stitch it up and you wouldn't even know that somebody has it.
And so then it can interface basically anywhere in your brain.
So it could be something that helps cure, say, eyesight.
It returns your eyesight even if you've lost your optic nerve type of thing.
I mean, pretty much anything that it could, in principle, fix almost anything that is wrong with the brain.
And it could restore limb functionality.
So if you've got an interface into the motor cortex and then an implant that's, say, that's like a microcontroller in your muscle groups, you could then create sort of a neural shunt.
That restores somebody who's a quadriplegic to full functionality.
Yeah, and you replace that, say, one inch diameter piece of skull with this Neuralink device, and that has a battery and a Bluetooth and an inductive charger, and then you also got to insert the electrodes.
So the electrodes are very carefully inserted with our robot that we developed.
It's very carefully putting in the electrodes and avoiding any veins or arteries.
And besides restoring limb function and eyesight and hearing, which are all amazing, is there any cognitive benefits that you anticipate from something like this?
Sort of thing for fixing any kind of brain injury in principle.
Or if you've got like severe epilepsy or something like that, it could just sort of stop the epilepsy from occurring.
Like it could detect it in real time and then fire a counter pulse and stop the epilepsy.
I mean, there's a whole range of brain injuries.
If somebody gets a stroke, they could lose the ability to speak.
That could also be fixed.
If you've got stroke damage or you lose, say, muscle control over part of your face or something like that.
And then when you get old, you tend to, if you get Alzheimer's or something like that, then you lose memory and this could help you with restoring your memory, that kind of thing.
The fear is that eventually you're going to have to cut the whole top of someone's head off and put a new top with a whole bunch of wires if you want to get the real turbocharged version.
It's just, I mean, once you enjoy the Dr. Manhattan lifestyle, once you become a god, it seems very, very unlikely you're going to want to go back to being stupid again.
I mean, you literally could fundamentally change the way human beings interface with each other.
When you said you won't have to talk to each other anymore, we used to joke around about that.
I've joked around about that a million times in this podcast, that one day in the future there's going to come a time where you can read each other's minds.
You'll be able to interface with each other in some sort of a non-verbal, non-physical way where you will transfer data back and forth to each other without having to actually use your mouth.
There's an interpretation factor too, like you can choose to interpret certain series of words in different ways, and they're dependent upon tone, dependent upon social cues, even facial expressions, sarcasm, there's a lot of variables.
And so one of the things that I've said is like that there could be potentially a universal language that's created through computers that particularly young kids would pick up very quickly.
Like my kids do TikTok and all this jazz and I don't know what they're doing.
They just know how to do it.
And they know how to do it really quickly.
Like they learn really quickly and they show me how to edit things.
And it's if you taught a child from first grade on How to use some new universal language, essentially like a Rosetta Stone, and something that's done that interprets your thoughts, and you can convey your thoughts with no room for interpretation,
with clear, very clear, where you know what a person's saying, and you can tell them what you're saying, and there's no need for noises, no need for mouth noises, no need for these sort of accepted ways that we've Sort of evolve to make sounds that we all agree.
So, at least for the first iterations, first few iterations, we'll just be able to use, like, I know that Google has their, some of their pixel buds have the ability to interpret languages in real time.
Sure.
Yeah, you can hear it and it'll play things back to you in whatever language you choose.
I've always speculated that aliens could potentially be us in the future because if you look at the size of their heads and the fact that they have very little muscle and they don't use their mouth anymore.
The archetypal alien that you see in Closed Encounters of the Third Kind, if you went from Australopithecus or ancient hominid to us, what's the difference?
Less hair, less muscle, bigger head.
And then you just keep going.
A thousand, a million, or five years, whatever happens when Neuralink goes on online.
And then we slowly start to adapt to this new way of being where we don't use our muscles anymore.
The idea that we're experiencing some sort of a preserved memory is, even though it's still the same, it's not comforting.
For some reason, when people talk about simulation theory, they talk about the potential for this currently being a simulation.
Even though your life might be wonderful, you might be in love, you might love your career, you might have great friends, but it's not comforting to know that this experience somehow or another doesn't exist in a material form that you can knock on.
And here's another sort of interesting idea, which is, because you say, like, where did consciousness arise?
Well, assuming you believe in physics, which appears to be true, then, you know, the universe started off as basically quarks and leptons, and it quickly became hydrogen and helium, lithium, like basically elements of the periodic table.
But it was like mostly hydrogen, basically.
And then over a long period of time, 13.8 billion years later, that hydrogen became sentient.
So where along the way did consciousness – what's the line of consciousness and not consciousness between hydrogen and here?
I was watching a video today that we played on a podcast earlier of a monkey riding a motorcycle down the street, jumps off the motorcycle and tries to steal a baby.
That's the real concern when people think about the potential future versions of human beings, especially when you consider a symbiotic relationship to artificial intelligence that will be unrecognizable, that one day we'll be so far removed from what this is.
We'll look back on this.
The way we look back now on simple organisms that we evolved from and that it won't be that far in the future that we do have this view back.
Well, I hope consciousness propagates into the future and gets more sophisticated and complex and that it understands the questions to ask about the universe.
As a human being, as yourself, you're clearly Trying to make conscious decisions to be a better version of you.
This is the idea of getting rid of your possessions and realizing that you're trying to, like, I don't like this.
I will try to improve this.
I will try to do a better version of the way I interface with reality.
That this is always the way things are.
If you're moving in some sort of a direction where you're trying to improve things, you're always going to move into this new place where you look back in the old place and go, I was doing it wrong back then.
I mean, you don't always improve, but you can aspire to improve.
You can aspire to be less wrong.
Yeah.
I think the tools of physics are very powerful.
Just assume you're wrong and your goal is to be less wrong.
I don't think you're going to succeed every day in being less wrong, but if you're going to succeed in being less wrong, most of the time you're doing great.
But will you appreciate it when you're a super nerd, when you're connected to the grid, and you have some skullcap in place of the top of your head, and it's interfacing with the international language that the rest of the universe now enjoys communication with people?
I mean, everyone's always scared of change, but I'm scared of this monumental change where we won't talk anymore.
We'll communicate.
Yes, but that's something about...
There's something about the beauty of the crudeness of language, where when it's done eloquently, it's satisfying and it hits us in some sort of a visceral way.
Like, ah, that person nailed it.
I love that they nailed it.
Like, that it's so hard to capture.
A real thought and convey it in a way, in this articulate way, that makes someone excited.
Like you read a quote, a great quote by a wise person.
It makes you excited that their mind figured something out, put the words together in a right way that makes your brain pop.
If this really does, I mean, initially it's going to help people with injuries, but you said ultimately it could lead to this spectacular cognitive change.
Well, in a capitalist society, it seems like you could really get so far ahead that before everybody else could afford this thing and link up and get connected as well, you'd be so far ahead they could never catch you.
There are huge differences in cognitive ability and resources already.
You can think of a corporation as a cybernetic collective that's far smarter than an individual.
I couldn't personally build a whole rocket and the engines and launch it and everything.
That's impossible.
But we have 8,000 people with SpaceX and Piecing it out to different people and using computers and machines and stuff, we can make lots of rockets launch into orbit, dock with the space station, that kind of thing.
So that already exists where corporations are vastly more capable than an individual.
But the – like we should be I think less concerned about like relative capabilities between people and more like having AI be vastly beyond us.
And somehow or another, so it's almost like it's a requirement for survival to achieve some sort of symbiotic existence with AI. It's not a requirement.
It's just if you want to be along for the ride, Then you need to do some kind of symbiosis.
So the way your brain works right now, you've got kind of like the animal brain, reptile brain, like the limbic system basically, and you've got the cortex.
The brain purists will argue with this definition, but essentially you've got the primitive brain and you've got the sort of Smart brain or the brain that's capable of planning and understanding concepts and difficult things that a monkey can't understand.
Now, your cortex is much, much smarter than your Olympic system.
Nonetheless, they work together well.
So I haven't met anyone who wants to delete the Olympic system or the cortex.
People are quite happy having both.
So you can think of this as being, like the computer, the AI is like a third layer, a tertiary layer.
So that is, like that could be symbiotic with the cortex.
It would be much smarter than the cortex, but you essentially have three layers.
And you actually have that right now.
Your phone is capable of things and your computer is capable of things that your brain is definitely not.
You know, storing Terabytes of information.
Perfectly.
Doing incredible calculations that we couldn't even come close to doing.
Like I said, if somebody's got a serious brain injury, and people have very severe brain injuries, and then you can fix those brain injuries, and then you prove out that it works, and you envelope expand and make more and more brain injuries solve more and more.
And then at a certain age, we all are going to get Alzheimer's.
We're all going to get senile.
And then, you know, moms forget the names of their kids and that kind of thing.
And so, you know, it's like you said, okay, well, you know, this would allow you to remember your names of your kids and have a normal, a much more normal life where you're able to function much later in life.
So essentially, almost everyone would find a need at some point, if you get old enough, to use Neuralink.
And then it's like, okay, so we can improve the functionality and improve the communication speed, so then you will not have to use your thumbs to communicate with the computer.
Like I said, this is not something that's going to sneak up on you.
You know, there's, like, getting FDA approval for this stuff is not, like, overnight, you know.
And there's, I mean, we probably have to be on, like, version 10 or something before, you know, it would realistically be, you know, it would realistically be, you know, a human AI symbiote situation situation.
You see it coming, but what do you think it's going to be?
Like when you sit, when you're alone, if you have free time, I don't know if you have free time, but if you just sit down and think about this iteration, the next, onward, keep going, and you drag it out with improvements along the way and leaps and bounds and technological innovations, where do you see it?
Now here we are, December, January, February, March, April, May, six months, totally different world.
So from nothing to everything's locked down.
There's so much conflicting information and conflicting opinions about how to proceed, what has happened.
You find things where there was a meatpacking plant, I believe, in Missouri, where 300 plus people were asymptomatic, tested positive or asymptomatic, and then in other places it just ravages entire communities and kills people.
It's so weird.
It almost appears, like if you didn't know anybody, you'd be like, what?
It seems like there's a bunch of different viruses.
It doesn't seem like it's the same thing.
Or has a bunch of different reactions to the biological variety of people.
I mean, I kind of saw this whole thing play out in China before it played out in the U.S. So, it's kind of like watching the same movie again, but in English.
Like if you're in the ICU in Manhattan and people are dying left and right and everyone's on intubators, it seems like when you see all these people on ventilators and so many of them are dying and you see these nurses are dying and doctors are getting sick, In some places, that fear is justified.
But then in other places, you're reading these stories about hospitals that are essentially half empty.
They're having to furlough doctors and nurses because there's no work for them.
Like people are taking some deep breaths and relaxing and because of the statistics, I mean, essentially, across the board, it's being recognized that it's not as fatal as we thought it was.
Still dangerous, still worse than the flu, but not as bad as we thought or we feared it could be.
But it's a – yeah, like killing large numbers of young healthy people, that's You know, define that as, like, high mortality, then this is at least practice for something like that.
And I think there's, you know, given it's just a matter of time, that there will be eventually some such pandemic.
Do you think that, in a sense, the one good thing that we might get out of this is the realization that this is a potential reality, that we got lucky in this sense?
I mean, people that didn't get lucky and died, of course, I'm not disrespecting their death and their loss, but I'm saying overall, as a culture, as a human race, as a community, this is not as bad as it could have been.
This is a good dry run for us to appreciate.
That we need far more resources dedicated towards understanding these diseases, what to do in the case of pandemic, and much more money that goes to funding treatments and some preventative measures.
And I think there's a good chance, it's highly likely, I think, coming out of this that we will develop vaccines that we didn't have before for coronaviruses and other viruses and possibly cures for these.
And our understanding of viruses of this nature has improved dramatically because of the attention that it's received.
The freedom of expression that comes from all these people that do attack you.
It's like, well, if there was no vulnerability whatsoever, they wouldn't attack you.
And it's like there's something about these Millions and millions of perspectives that you have to appreciate.
Even if it comes your way, even if the shit storm hits you in the face, you gotta appreciate, wow, how amazing is it that all these people do have the ability to express themselves.
You don't necessarily want to be there when the shit hits you.
You might want to get out of the way in anticipation of the shitstorm, but the fact that so many people have the ability to reach out, and I think it's, in a lot of ways, it's, I don't want to say a misused resource, but it's like giving monkeys guns.
They just start gunning down things that are in front of them without any realization of what they're doing.
Oh, the fucking business is going under because of Twitter wars.
It seems like there's something about it that's this newfound thing that I don't want to say abuse, but just I want to say that it's almost like, you know, you hit the button and things blow up.
It's like when you write something in 280 characters, and they write something in 280...
It's such a crude way.
It's like someone sending opposing smoke signals that refute your smoke signals.
It's so crude.
Especially when you're talking about something like Neuralink.
You're talking about some future potential where you're going to be able to express pure thoughts that get conveyed through some sort of a universal language with no ambiguity whatsoever versus, you know, tweets.
He's a British fellow, brilliant guy, who's been on the podcast before, and he has this fictional character, this pseudonym, Titania McGrath, who's like the ultimate social justice warrior.
But even five minutes every couple hours, if those are bad five minutes, they might be bouncing around in your head for the next 30. Yeah, you have to...
You know, like, let's say you're just, like, average citizen trying to just get the facts, you know, figure out what's going on, like, you know, how to live your life and, you know, just looking for what's going on in the world.
It's hard to find something that isn't, you know...
That's good.
Not trying to push some partisan angle, not doing sloppy reporting and just aiming for the most number of clicks and trying to maximize ad dollars and that kind of thing.
And that seems to be the problem, these individual biases and these individual...
There's purposely distorted perceptions and then there's ignorantly reported facts and there's so many variables and you got to put everything through this filter of where is this person coming from?
Do they have political biases?
Do they have social biases?
Are they upset because of their own shortcomings and are they projecting this into the story?
As far as investigative reporters in particular, the way he reported the savings and loan crisis, the way he reports everything, I just listen to him above everything.
His stuff on the savings and loan crisis is just like, what in the fuck?
Sure.
And, you know, he's not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, so he had to really sort of deeply embed himself in that world to try to understand it and to be able to report on it.
Well, I like what you said when you said that it should be a choice and that to require people to stay home, require people to not go to work, and to arrest people for trying to make a living.
This all seems wrong, and I think it's a wrong approach.
Yeah, I mean, it just should be, if you're at risk, you should not be compelled to leave your house or leave a place of safety, but you should also not be, if you're not at risk, or if you are at risk and you wish to take a risk with your life, you should have the right to do that.
And it seems like, at this point in time particularly, our resources would be best served protecting the people that are at risk versus penalizing the people that are not at high risk for living their life the way they did, particularly having a career and making a living and feeding your family, paying your bills, keeping your store open, keeping your restaurant open.
You should stay home for the people that, even if you're fine, even if you know you're going to be okay, there are certain people that will not be okay because of your actions.
They might get exposed to this thing that we don't have a vaccine for.
We don't have universally accepted treatment for.
There's two arguments, right?
One argument is we need to keep going, protect the weak, protect the sick, but let's open up the economy.
The other argument is stop placing money over human lives And let's shelter in place until we come up with some sort of a decision and let's figure out some way to develop some sort of a universal basic income plan or something like that to feed people during this time when we make this transition.
My opinion is if somebody wants to stay home, they should stay home.
If somebody doesn't want to stay home, they should not be compelled to stay home.
That's my opinion.
If somebody doesn't like that, well, that's my opinion.
So, now, yeah.
This notion, though, that you can just sort of send checks out to everybody and things will be fine is not true, obviously.
Some people have this absurd, like...
View that the economy is like some magic horn of plenty.
It just makes stuff.
There's a magic horn of plenty.
The goods and services, they just come from this magic horn of plenty.
If somebody has more stuff than somebody else, it's because they took more from this magic horn of plenty.
Now let me just break it to the fools out there.
If you don't make stuff, there's no stuff.
Yeah.
So, if you don't make the food, if you don't process the food, you don't transport the food, medical treatment, getting your teeth fixed, there's no stuff.
I've become detached from reality.
You can't just legislate money and solve these things.
If you don't make stuff, there is no stuff.
Obviously.
We'll run out of the stores.
We'll run out of the, you know, the machine just grinds to a halt.
But the initial thought on this virus, the real fear, was that this was going to kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people instantaneously in this country.
It was going to do it very quickly.
If we didn't hunker down, if we didn't shelter in place, if we didn't quarantine ourselves or lock down, do you think that the initial thought was a good idea based on the perception that this was going to be far more deadly than it turned out to be?
But I think if, you know, any kind of like sensible examination of what happened in China would lead to the conclusion that that is obviously not going to occur.
This virus originated in Wuhan.
There's like, I don't know, 100,000 people a day leaving Wuhan.
So it went everywhere very fast throughout China, throughout the rest of the world.
Do you think there's a danger of politicizing this, where it becomes like opening up the country's, Donald Trump's, It's his goal.
And then anything he does, there's people that are going to oppose it and come up with some reasons why he's wrong, particularly in this climate as we're leading up to November and the 2020 elections.
Do you think that this is a real danger in terms of public's perception, that Trump wants to open it up so they knee-jerk oppose it because they oppose Trump?
I think there has been some, this has been politicized, you know, in both directions really.
So it's, which is not great.
Yeah, but like I said, separate and apart from that, I think there's the question of like, you know, where do civil liberties fit in this picture, you know?
Do you think it's one of those things where once we've gone in a certain direction, it's very difficult to make a correction, make an adjustment to realize, like, okay, we thought it was one thing.
It's not good, but it's not what we thought it was going to be.
It's not what we feared.
So let's back up and reconsider.
And let's do this publicly and say we were acting based on the information that we had initially.
That information appears to be faulty.
And here's how we move forward while protecting civil liberties, while protecting what essentially this country was founded on, which is a very agreed upon amount of freedom that we respect and appreciate.
Well, I think we're rapidly moving towards opening up the country.
It's going to happen extremely fast over the next few weeks.
So, yeah.
Something that would be helpful just to add from an informational level is when reporting sort of COVID cases to separate out diagnosed with COVID versus had COVID-like symptoms.
Yes.
Because the list of symptoms that could be COVID at this point is like a mile long.
So it's like hard to, if you're ill at all, it's like it could be COVID. So just to give people better information.
Definitely diagnosed with COVID or had COVID-like symptoms.
We're conflating those two so that it looks bigger than it is.
Then if somebody dies, was COVID a primary cause of the death or not?
I mean, if somebody has COVID, gets eaten by a shark, we find their arm.
Their arm has COVID. It's going to get recorded as a COVID death.
Well, right now, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I mean, it's mostly paved with bad intentions, but there is some good intentions paving stones in there, too.
And the stimulus bill that was intended to help with the hospitals that were being overrun with COVID patients created an incentive to record something as COVID that is difficult to say no to, especially if your hospital is going bankrupt for lack of other patients.
So the hospitals are in a bind right now.
There's a bunch of hospitals that are following doctors, as you were mentioning.
If your hospital is half full, it's hard to make ends meet.
So now you've got like, you know, if I just check this box, I get $8,000.
Put them on a ventilator for five minutes, I get $39,000.
So, like I said, I just want to make sure we record it as COVID only if somebody has been tested, has received a positive COVID. Positive COVID test, not if they simply have symptoms, one of like 100 symptoms.
And then if it is a COVID death, it must be separated.
Or did they also have stage 3 cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and got hit by a bus and had COVID? Yeah, I've read all this stuff about them diagnosing people as a COVID death despite other variables.
If you give people just parse out the data better, Clearer information about, like I said, was this an actual COVID diagnosis or did they get the test and the test came back positive or did they just have some symptoms?
Just parse those two out and then parse out just if somebody died, did they even have a COVID test?
I mean actually if this – I think a lesson to be taken here that I think is quite important is that if you have grandparents and their age of grandparents, really be careful with any kind of flu or cold or something that is not dangerous to – It's dangerous to the elderly.
Basically, if your kid's got a runny nose, they should stay away from their grandparents no matter what it is.
There are things where a young immune system has no problem and an older one has a problem.
In fact, a lot of the deaths are literally tragic, but they're intrafamily.
I mean, some of the people who have lived the longest, you know, there was a woman in France who I think maybe has the record or close to it, and she had a glass of wine every day, you know.
It's like just avoid having alcohol and avoid eating at least two or three hours before going to sleep and your quality of sleep will improve and your general health will improve a lot.
But, yeah, especially if I'm out, like, you know, say, working on Starship or something in South Texas and I'm just living in my little house there in Boca Chica Village.
I don't have much to do, so...
Or, like, I'm working and I'll just lift some wages or something, you know.
If you look at it from the outside, you think, oh, a bunch of meatheads strangling each other.
But there's some of the smartest people I know are jujitsu fiends because they get, first of all, they get introduced to it because usually either they want to exercise or learn some self-defense.
But then they realize that it's essentially like a language with your body.
Like you're having an argument with someone with some sort of a physical language.
And it's really complex.
And the more access to vocabulary and the sharper your words are, the more you'll succeed in these ventures.
That's really also an accurate analogy of what Jiu Jitsu is.
What it showed is that there is a method for diffusing these situations with technique and knowledge.
And I think it's also a great way to exercise, too, because it's almost like the exercise is secondary to the learning of the thing.
The exercise is like you want to develop strength and conditioning just so that you can be better at doing the thing.
And the analogy that I use is like, imagine if you had a race car and you could actually give the race car better handling and more horsepower just from your own focus and effort.
Some of the things for Roadster, you know, the tri-motor, a plaid powertrain.
We're going to have that in Model S. So that's like one of the ingredients that's needed for Roadster is the The Plaid powertrain, the more advanced battery back, that kind of thing.
It really is like a roller coaster on top, without the loop-de-loops, but the pinning to your seat, it seems like you're not supposed to be able to experience that from some sort of a consumer vehicle that a regular person could buy if you have the money.
It seems too crazy.
And then the idea that this Roadster is a half of a second faster than that, that's madness.
No, I definitely swore, but I didn't think the mic would pick it up, but it did.
And...
We practice this behind the scenes.
At Tesla, we don't do tons of practice for our demos because we're working on the cars.
We're building new technologies and improving the fundamental product.
We're not doing hundreds of practice things or anything like that.
We don't have time for that.
But just hours before the demo, both Franz, you know, head of design and I were in the studio throwing steel balls at the window and just bouncing right off.
I'm like, okay, this seems pretty good.
Seems like we got it.
Okay.
And then we think what happened was that when Franz hit the door with the sledgehammer, you know, so like this is like exoskeleton, you know, high strength hardened steel.
You can literally...
We wind up with a full-on double-handed sledgehammer and hit the door and there's not even a dent.
It's cool.
But we think that that cracked the corner of the glass at the bottom.
And then once you crack the corner of the glass, you're just game over.
So then when you threw the bowl, that's what cracked the glass.