All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 3, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
51:08
Episode 401 Scott Adams: Proposal to End the Border Wall Impasse
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, come on in here.
I know I'm late.
I'm in a different time zone for a few days.
But it's time for coffee with Scott Adams, no matter where I am.
No matter where you are.
Drop what you're doing. Unless it's a baby.
If you're holding a baby, don't drop it.
But otherwise, just drop whatever you're doing.
And join me. Grab your cup, your mug, your chalice, your thermos.
Grab your stein, your container, your glass.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the simultaneous sip.
Oh, that's good.
I see some of you are drinking the tears of your enemies instead of coffee.
That is an acceptable replacement.
It is. So I came up with a plan for ending this whole border wall problem.
You know, you got the Democrats saying walls don't work.
And you've got the Republicans saying walls work.
And here's what I propose.
Are you ready? Since we know that Democrats love Complicated multivariate prediction models, such as for climate change.
Why don't we create a complex multivariate model or just have science do some studies to find out if walls work?
So why don't we commission some scientists to study the effectiveness of walls?
So, for example, they could run tests where you build a wall and then you have some kind of, let's say, an animal or...
Yeah, let's say an animal.
And you have that animal run as hard as it can into the wall.
And then you measure how many times it works.
How many times does the animal get past the wall by butting its head into it?
I'm not suggesting that the human beings at the border are animals.
Don't take me out of context.
I know you like to do that.
I'm just saying that you do animal tests before you do human trials.
So we should do some animal testing.
With walls. See if animals can get over walls first.
And if walls stop animals, then we can move on to the human trials where you build a wall and then you say, hey, do you want to go over this wall or maybe you'd like to take a different route?
And then, after you've done the studies, that's not enough.
You need to do a complicated, multivariate model that predicts the future of immigration and all of its impacts, including economic and crime and race relations and everything else.
You've got to put it all in your model, and you should predict it for 80 years into the future.
Because, you know, there's nothing more believable Than a complex multivariate model that you can't see the code that predicts something exact 80 years in the future.
We know the Democrats will believe that kind of thing.
So let's get busy on that.
Let's turn it over to the scientists and do some studies.
We've got to get to the bottom of this.
Do walls work from a scientific basis?
Or are we all just using our anecdotal information and we don't really know if walls work?
So let's be the group that believes in science and study walls.
Find out if walls actually stop people from going where they wanted to go without that wall.
Ah, I snuck in a simultaneous sip there that was asynchronous.
That was the asynchronous sip and I hope you didn't mind.
Super Bowl prediction?
Yes. I will now give you my Super Bowl prediction.
And before I give you my Super Bowl prediction, there's just one piece of information I need.
Can somebody tell me who's playing?
I am vaguely aware that the Patriots are in the Super Bowl.
Are they playing against another team?
Is there somebody else playing?
Who's the other team?
Let's see how long it takes somebody in the comments to tell me who the Pats are playing.
It seems to be the Patriots versus we don't remember, which would be very predictive, don't you think?
If you can't remember, the Rams.
Okay. The Patriots versus the Rams.
Well, as you know, I always like to pick winners based on how the mascots would do if they fought each other.
So here you have a patriot who would obviously be armed with some kind of a long rifle, probably with a musket.
And then you have the ram.
It's got these big old ram horns.
So in a battle between a ram and a patriot, it would sort of depend how quickly the patriot could reload his musket.
Because if the Patriot gets off one lucky shot, well, I'd say the Patriot beats the Ram.
But if he misses on the first shot, I've got a feeling the Ram kills the Patriot while he's trying to reload his musket.
So it depends on accuracy.
So do the Patriots have an accurate quarterback?
Well, turns out they do.
Turns out they do.
So I'm gonna go with the Patriots.
Don't hate me. For picking the obvious.
Alright. Will Gillette be on the ads?
I don't know. So I have to tell you that I've stopped paying attention to football.
I don't know if I'll turn on the Super Bowl today or not.
Maybe if I'm bored.
Thank you. Somebody read my book, God's Debris, and liked it.
Oh, the bayonet. I forgot about the bayonet.
Yeah, so maybe it'd be a more advantage to the patriot.
What was I talking about?
Oh, football.
So I lost interest in football, and for me it wasn't because of the protests over the anthem.
From the start, I said the anthem protests were offensive, but they were meant to be that.
So they were effective in the sense that they got our attention.
I don't think it's been effective in making anything change, but it got our attention.
Here's why I stopped watching football.
It's hard to support something that we know at this point, that we know for sure, is damaging brains.
And apparently pretty much every professional player, and I think even high school and college players, they all have, it seems to be they all have measurable, measurable brain damage.
And I don't know how I can support that.
So now when I watch football, that's sort of all I see.
I just see the brain damage.
So I can't enjoy it as a sport anymore because it shouldn't be happening.
By the way, I think all of our sports are completely broken.
Can you imagine what sports would look like if we invented them today?
Let me tell you how some of the sports are broken.
When basketball was invented, Did anybody contemplate that there would be people who were seven foot six playing basketball?
Probably not. Probably nobody figured there would be one person who would be three feet taller than the other person.
So, the first thing you do to fix basketball is say that you can only play within your height range.
Because we have precedent for that because we have women's sports and men's sports and there's a reason because the men are physically stronger and it wouldn't be a good competition if you had them on the same team or in the same competition.
But why is it fair that a 5'8 person can play basketball against a 7'6 person?
That doesn't seem fair.
So, the first thing is that basketball should be limited by height.
You know, maybe within like a 4-inch range.
You always have to play people your height.
Tennis is completely broken because of the serve.
Have you ever tried to watch tennis lately?
It used to be my favorite game.
But then the rackets kept getting better and better.
So the technology of the rackets kept improving.
To the point where if you have a good enough racket and your racket is strung just right, the other player can barely hit the ball back.
So if you got rid of the serve, tennis could be fun again.
Because the serve just ruins everything.
It makes everything boring. The first serve is almost always out.
And it's boring to watch.
Then take baseball.
Baseball's got a problem because it's sort of a long attention span kind of a game.
Need to do something to make baseball more interesting or shorter or more action or something going on there.
And then soccer. How easy would it be to fix soccer?
The biggest problem with soccer is there's not enough scoring, right?
So all you do is make the goals bigger.
So soccer, you should make the goals bigger and maybe get rid of offsides because that just makes everything less fun.
Do not touch baseball.
Do not, somebody says.
Yeah, I think probably baseball is held up the best.
Of all the sports, that's the one that still makes a little bit of sense.
Then let's talk about golf.
The biggest problem with golf, if you're a new player, is that the clubs are all different lengths.
So even if you're really good at one club, that doesn't make you good at the other club.
And do you know why the clubs are different lengths?
Why if you put a club on the ground, one of them would be longer than the other?
No good reason. Apparently there's no good reason.
There's really no compelling reason that your clubs can't all be the same length.
And in fact, there's a famous story of somebody who had custom clubs made that were all the same length and worked great.
So I think I probably won't get back into golf unless you can get rid of the people who are in front of you and behind you because they ruin it.
I hate it when there are people behind me.
And, well, a lot of the clubs are different shape.
Yeah, there should be maybe two clubs.
Something like a wedge and something like a putter.
That's all you need. I'm on vacation and I have not had enough time to watch Hoaxed yet.
I said I was, but that's on the top of my list.
Then I'll talk about it after we watch it.
So, I was going to say something I don't want to say.
What is everybody's prediction on this Smollet story?
Smollet? Or is it Smollet or Smollet?
The actor who claims to have been attacked by people wearing MAGA hats?
Is anybody believing that story?
I would say the credibility of that story approaches zero.
But I wasn't there.
We cannot say with certainty what happened in a place where we weren't there and there were no video cameras capturing anything.
But I would say, if I had to bet on it, Maybe there is a betting.
I doubt you could have a betting pool on this, but if you had to bet on it, you would definitely bet it didn't happen.
The part that's weird is that they put a rope around his neck.
I mean, none of it really makes sense.
It just all doesn't make sense.
Oh, and then apparently the Governor Northam, somebody said he walked back his apology.
Well, I don't think that's...
Exactly the way to say it.
I think it would be more accurate to say he moonwalked it back.
Has anybody used that yet?
Feel free to use that.
Governor Northam moonwalked back his apology.
Just before I turned this on, I watched the video clip of somebody asking him to moonwalk, and his wife says, inappropriate situation.
The best part about it was that Northam's wife has so little respect for his judgment that she felt she needed to tell him not to moonwalk.
She felt she needed to tell him, don't moonwalk.
And she knows him best.
So if she thought he might moonwalk...
the fact the fact that his wife thought he might he might just like get out from behind the lectern and start and start moonwalking it's the best thing ever Oh.
And it gets even better because apparently he's not entirely sure how many times he's dressed up in blackface.
Apparently it's happened enough that he wasn't sure if that picture was him.
All right.
Now, here's my opinion.
Although I do believe it would have been inappropriate for him to moonwalk, wouldn't it be fair to say he's so toast that I kind of want to see it?
Personally, I would like to see him moonwalk now, because he might as well change the conversation, right?
Because if he moonwalks, that's all we're going to be talking about.
If you could give me a video of the governor moonwalking, doing a Michael Jackson tribute, think about this.
The first thing that would happen is, you would see that he's probably a fan.
Suppose he moonwalked.
I'm just going to put this out here, just for fun.
Suppose he moonwalked, and we get that on video, and of course it would be the headline, it would be all you saw on television.
The news channels could not stop running that if he moonwalks.
But here's the thing. If he moonwalks really well, and maybe he has some other moves, other Michael Jackson moves, If he could pull off, if Northam could pull off 10 seconds of credible Michael Jackson imitation and also sells to us that he was a genuine fan.
Let's say he has an old record of Michael Jackson.
Let's say he produces a Thriller album from 1984 or something.
Whenever Thriller came out.
And Would that change what you thought about that old photo?
Because if he could actually moonwalk, and we could verify that he was a huge Michael Jackson fan, doesn't that make you feel different about the costume?
Now, I'm not going to say it was ever a good idea, and I'm not going to say that people wouldn't be offended, but it would definitely change your opinion.
Because if you're dressing Think about the entire, not the entire, but a big part of A big part of why people are so angry with him is that we assume his internal thoughts were as, let's say, as bad as what we saw.
So in other words, we're looking at the video, you know, looking at a picture of him dressed as apparently Michael Jackson or something, and we're thinking, oh my god, big ol' racist, he's making fun of Michael Jackson.
But if he could actually moondance, yeah, moonwalk, and he actually had some Michael Jackson moves, and he had an old Thriller album, just to pick one, and he could prove that he was a huge Michael Jackson fan, it kind of looks different, doesn't it? Doesn't it look different if he could demonstrate he was like a super fan of Michael Jackson?
Now, I'm not going to say that would save his career, because I don't think that could be done.
But he has nothing to lose at this point.
And as far as that nickname he had, the nickname he could explain away by saying that's what other people called him, and it wasn't his nickname.
If he could prove he never called himself that, then it just makes his friends look like racists because that was the nickname for him.
Now, I'm not saying any of that would be good enough to save his career.
I'm just saying it would be hilarious, and we couldn't stop watching it.
Yeah, he...
You jumped.
Assuming he was the Michael Jackson look-like.
Well, I think that was the question, wasn't it?
I'm not predicting any of that should happen, but it would be hilarious.
How do you get a nickname like C-O-O-N-M-A-N?
Somebody is asking me.
Unless you're a racist.
Simple. You once wore a Michael Jackson costume, and your friends are racists.
If the people who gave him the nickname were racist, that would explain it.
The other possibility is he liked to hunt.
Now, I haven't heard anybody say this, but where I grew up, where I grew up, if somebody used that nickname, it actually wouldn't have been a racist nickname.
I hate to even say this because it's going to look like I'm, you know, I'm defending him.
So let me say as clearly as possible, I am not defending.
I'm just giving you some context.
Where I grew up in upstate New York, shooting raccoons was a fairly common thing.
We called it hunting.
People used the C-O-O-N word to talk about raccoons.
So where I grew up, if you had that nickname, it would more likely refer to some hunting situation or the fact that you once shot one in some famous situation or something like that.
And I'm not in the least suggesting that that explains Northam's situation.
I'm just saying that if you're asking yourself how else can it be explained, And by the way, one of the things I write about in my upcoming book, Loser Think, is that if your argument is based on you can't imagine any other explanation, you have a weak argument.
It doesn't matter what the situation is.
If you're saying, the only thing I can imagine to explain these variables is just this one thing...
It probably is a failure of imagination.
I just gave you an example of how you could easily imagine that it was a hunting-related nickname, or it was given to him by other people and it was not a nickname he embraced.
So those are two explanations that probably did not occur to you.
And I'm not saying that they explain the situation at all.
I'm just saying that you have to be careful.
You have to be careful that you assume you know the explanation for things.
Remember the Covington Catholic School situation.
What did I do wrong in interpreting that initial video as being the kids surrounding the Native American guy?
Well, what I did wrong is that I could not imagine there was an alternative explanation.
Now, it turns out the alternative explanation is selective editing, which should have been right in the top of my mind.
But I couldn't look at that picture and imagine how that could have been selectively edited.
Like, my imagination was not big enough to incorporate any other possibility than what I was seeing was exactly what was happening.
Somebody just offered a third explanation for his nickname.
Again, not saying that this is likely, but that if he was wearing a raccoon skin hat like Davy Crockett for any reason, if he'd been in a play or somebody had one as a joke or something, you could imagine him getting a nickname.
I will tell you that my college nickname It was based on a sweatshirt I wore once.
So I had a nickname for four years in college that was my primary name.
People didn't even use my regular first name.
They called me the letter W. So for four years, my college friends called me W because one day I wore a sweatshirt that had a big letter W on it for the town that I went to school in.
So could he have worn a hat one time and that could cause him a nickname for the rest of his school days?
Yes. Because that's exactly what happened to me.
I wore one shirt one time and I got a nickname that lasted me four years.
And I did not give that nickname to myself.
it was assigned by other people as nicknames often are.
For W. Bush, U. Traynor, Who's a traitor? What?
Going to talk about anything new today?
Well, it's funny you should ask.
Because... I'll just...
Dammit. Sorry, I just blocked the wrong person.
So the blocking on here, I just blocked some innocent person who's wondering why they got blocked.
If you try to block them as they're moving, sometimes you hit the wrong person.
So I'll see if I can unblock that person later.
The book title is LoserThink.
It'll be out in October.
Now, somebody asked if I'm going to cover any new topics today.
Here's the problem. There's no new news today.
There's nothing.
There's nothing in the news. I just checked.
I just checked CNN and Fox News, and there's literally no new news.
Now, that might be because it's the Super Bowl today.
It might be because...
Oh, I'll tell you what it is.
It might be because the news is all positive for Trump.
Trump has had this spectacular week, but you're not going to see that on the left, and the right seems to have some...
They're revisiting some stuff, too.
Trump interview tonight leaking?
I don't know about that.
I did not watch the president's interview.
I think I saw on Fox News that Michael Moore was saying that AOC is really the leader of the Democrats.
I think there's some truth to that.
She's not the only leader, but there's definitely some truth to that.
So yesterday somebody sent me some what I would call fake video.
It's fake in the sense that it was an edited summary, I guess, or just selectively edited, let's say, clip of Nancy Pelosi.
And the clip was edited so that you could see all of her misspeaking.
So everywhere where she struggled for a word, or she paused to find the next word, or she had to stop and correct herself.
I saw it edited together, so if you saw it all together, it looked like she had some kind of fairly serious mental problem.
And it was really convincing.
It was also fake news because if you I'm sure if you'd seen all of those mistakes you know spread out over the course of a long public spontaneous public speaking event that lasted a long time there were quite a few times where she had to you know go for a word and struggle and they wouldn't look nearly the same if you saw them in their original context spread out but when you see them all put together they they tell a They tell a troubling story.
They did the same thing for Trump, yeah.
It's just a good trick. All it does is put all your mistakes together.
Am I sticking with the Schultz prediction?
The Schultz prediction is that he would not ultimately run for president.
And the answer is yes.
I'm sticking to that. If Schultz runs for president, It will be a serious blow to Starbucks coffee business because we know the Democrats are not going to like Schultz and the Democrats are the party of boycotts.
Now, it could be that people are so addicted to coffee that there's nothing they can do to stop drinking it.
Atlanta spent $23 million on the footbridge for the Super Bowl, but it won't open because of security.
Well, I don't know about that story.
I'm just reading it here. You think Schultz will win?
Well, winning as a third party would be an amazing thing, but I don't see it happening.
Somebody says Republicans don't boycott.
they do but not as effectively apparently somebody says they wish they had my brain Well, that would be a bloody operation, and probably the transplant would not work.
Might have to wait a few years for that.
So I noticed NBC taking down Tulsi Gabbard.
So there's an article, an anti-Tulsi Gabbard article in NBC News.
And I thought to myself, isn't NBC News the one everybody says is owned by the CIA?
Didn't we just find out that the CIA is backing Kamala Harris by the fact that NBC News just went after Tulsa Gabbard?
Oh, CBS, somebody says?
Yes.
I saw it on NBC.
That's why I saw an NBC article.
RGB prediction.
What would you like me to predict?
Are you asking me to predict your death?
That would not be That would not be cool.
Oh, somebody's asking me to predict whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg is alive.
Yes, she's definitely alive.
The odds of a Supreme Court justice dying without the news getting out It's zero.
It's zero. Now, I'm guessing she's not in very good shape, but we kind of knew that.
Somebody says her taxidermist says she's fine.
That's pretty funny.
It's cruel, but it's funny.
So, let me ask you this.
Let's talk about the prediction for the wall and for the emergency situation.
It seems to me that President Trump has set the table for an emergency declaration that would have seemed extreme a month ago.
But now it's going to look like he's taking action because the government is just not being useful.
So wouldn't you say...
Let me say this.
I think the strongest play for the president is not to say, well, here's the best way to frame if he goes for the emergency declaration for the wall, which I think is close to guaranteed at this point.
If he had tried to do an emergency declaration a few months ago, it would have been just a huge uproar and it would have been a big problem politically in every other way.
I think the system would have taken some strain on that.
But now that the President has acted reasonably and he has allowed the Democrats to have their negotiations with the government open, And now that they've clearly demonstrated that they're not credible players, this is a big deal.
Because until we actually witnessed the Democrats trying to negotiate and not being even serious about it, you could have imagined that maybe they could have.
So until they failed right in front of us, It was easy to imagine, well, maybe if they did have some meetings, they could work this out.
But now you don't have to wonder, because the President gave them enough rope to hang themselves.
He actually baited them, or they baited themselves.
I don't know if it was his clever plan or it just worked out this way.
But because he gave them room to negotiate, and he let them fail spectacularly in public, and he let them die on the sword of, we're going to ignore the experts and the engineers, which is what he did, right?
So when the negotiations fail, and it's obvious that there's no chance that they can succeed at this point, When they fail, the President is going to say, we talked to the experts, we talked to the engineers, and they said unequivocally, and no doubt about it, that in these specific areas, you need some wall.
The Democrats failed to listen to the experts, failed to listen to the engineers, and now, because they are useless, They're useless.
I'm going to make a decision for the American people within my authority as commander-in-chief.
And at this point, it's going to go down, you know, it'll always go down a little hard, but at this point, the country is primed to accept it.
If you're a Democrat, You cannot look at this situation and tell yourself that your side played it fairly.
You cannot look at this situation as a Democrat and say, yeah, the Democrats were really negotiating in good faith for this wall stuff.
That never happened.
Even their own side knows that they played it politically instead of playing it for the benefit of the country.
That is no longer in question, or it won't be when they finally give up with this stupid committee stuff.
Yeah, and you could always say, well, that's always been the case.
The Democrats have always been obstructionists.
But because of the way we got here, the closing of the government, Pelosi's demand that if we opened the government, everybody could play nice with each other, and then it didn't happen.
So we saw, essentially, Pelosi being not a credible participant in the effort to fix things.
Total clearance now to do what he needs to do.
You can always tell when the Democrats are losing.
What is it that Democrats say?
Whenever it looks like they're going to lose hard when it comes to border security.
Because at this point, you can kind of already project forward.
You know that the committee won't work.
Nothing will come out of that.
You know that the president's not going to close the government again because that didn't work last time.
And you know that he will do the emergency declaration because it's the only rational path that will be left to him.
And of course he will do it.
So those things we can predict with clarity.
But if you hear the Democrats say, if they start talking about, he said Mexico would pay for it, then you know they've lost.
If all they have left is the part of the campaign promise that really was more joke and marketing than it was serious, at least in a direct way, if they're arguing that the indirect way we're getting money from Mexico is not the same as a direct way, well, they will be technically correct.
But they will be dealing with trivialities.
If that's all they have left, that's not a strong play.
So every time I see somebody say, oh yeah, but what about, he said Mexico would pay for it.
Once you've gotten to the point where everyone agrees that the dollar amounts are trivial, It kind of doesn't matter who pays for it at that point, does it?
Because nobody's saying $5.7 billion will break the bank.
Nobody's saying that the United States can't afford $5.7 billion.
Nobody's saying that. So if you've already admitted that money isn't really a problem, taking that to the next level and saying, okay, there are two things we know for sure.
The amount of money is totally trivial.
And you said Mexico would pay for it.
What about Mexico paying for it?
That is the weakest attack you'll ever see.
So the more they're talking about Mexico not paying for it, the more you should celebrate if you want to all.
All right. Yeah, there was a story about Iran.
Admitting that they were cheating on their enriching uranium.
Did you see that? I'm not sure that that's a confirmed story, so I think I'm not going to talk about it because I don't think that's sufficiently confirmed.
So I did go and watch the video clip of Joe Rogan and Jack Dorsey.
They were talking about this.
They were talking about coffee with Scott Adams and the simultaneous sip.
And that brings up an interesting point.
If you take a startup to venture capitalists or any kind of people who are experienced funders, and you say, here's my startup, and here's what I want to do.
If you do that, the experts will always say the same thing.
They'll say, who is your specific customer?
And if you say, everybody's my customer.
I'm marketing this to basically everybody.
You can't get funded. So that's one of those universal truths in startups.
That if you say your customer is everyone, you can't get funding.
Because they need a specific customer so they can judge whether you can go get that specific customer.
But look at Facebook.
What is Facebook's specific customer?
It's everybody, right?
And they didn't even start out With that thought, they started out trying to meet girls in college, right?
So they started out with a specific customer, but it didn't make any difference because it ended up their customer was everyone.
And then, speaking of the Joe Rogan broadcast interviewing Jack Dorsey, The history of Twitter is that it started as something completely different.
It was some kind of limited message service, but the public decided they liked it in some form that evolved to what you're seeing now, the modern Twitter.
Twitter didn't have a specific customer that lasted.
They had a specific use case, but it had nothing to do with, or very little to do with, what Twitter became.
And who is Twitter for?
Who is the customer for Twitter?
Well, kind of everyone, right?
And then on the broadcast they were talking about Periscope.
Periscope was originally imagined as its original form where you just turn it on and it's a live broadcast from wherever you are.
But as Jack was describing on Joe Rogan, that people like me started using it for podcasts.
Which was not an original, it wasn't an application that was originally assumed.
And because people started using it for that, so the way I'm using it is more like a podcast.
And so because people started using it like that, they started adding features To satisfy that market.
So in other words, here again, Periscope started with a certain application and market in mind, but they listened to the audience and they moved where the audience wanted it to go.
Same with, I'm pretty sure you could just go down the list and you could find company after company that started as one thing and became something else.
You know, who is Google's customer?
Everyone. Who is Apple's customer?
Well, it's everyone who has money, right?
Because their product is a little higher end than the competition.
But it's basically everyone.
So, I'm trying to square these two things.
Oh, and let's take Dilbert, for example.
Dilbert started out as just being a comic for people who had the same sense of humor as I did, which turned out to be a small audience.
But the audience told me, hey, we like it when he's doing workplace stuff.
So because the audience told me, I moved Dilbert to a workplace comic and then it succeeded.
So what I observe, and by the way, we've got a feature change on my interface by WenHub app that's out now.
And when you see the feature change, you're going to see this effect.
So we're adding a feature, and I'll tell you about it when we release it, I think in a week or so, that is completely dependent on what customers wanted and asked for.
And it's a completely different application in addition to the things that it already does.
So, you're going to see that there are two ways to get to where you want to get.
One is to have a specific customer and really chase that customer, and that's the way you can get funding more easily.
But, once you're chasing a specific customer, you end up listening to the audience and then adjusting your product in a variety of different ways until it becomes a different product, and the audience tells you what that is.
The wisdom of people who fund startups is almost directly opposite of how we observe the world to work.
And I've never quite squared those two things, how they can be Oh, somebody said their daughter went on there as a script doctor.
That's a good use. So, the script doctor is somebody who looks at a script that's been written, let's say, for a movie or a TV show, and they know how to fix it from a raw form into something that's punchy and good.
That would be a perfect use for the app, actually.
Okay, I'm just going to tell you what the feature is.
Are you ready? Should I tell you?
I wonder if my partners will get mad at me if I tell you.
I'm just going to tell you. We're adding a donate button.
So in other words, if you sign up for the interface by WinHub app and you have a profile on there, You won't need to be live.
In other words, you don't have to be available for a call, and people can still donate to you.
So, if you are a, let's say, conservative artist, and you don't want to be on Patreon, or you don't want to be on Let's say you got defunded on other platforms.
You'd have one more option.
So it would be one way to make sure people could donate to you with no friction.
I think it would take 30 seconds or well, not 30 seconds, but it might take you a full 60 seconds to add your profile to the interface by WinHub app.
And then you just tell people to go search for your name and hit the button and they can donate to you.
Now, why did we add this feature?
And it's not out yet, so you have to wait.
I'll tell you when it's out. Maybe a week or so.
I believe it's been tested and already submitted to the app stores.
But the reason we added it is because largely people on Periscope asked me for it.
So you're actually seeing how these platforms interact.
So because I'm on Periscope, I get lots of comments.
You see them going by.
And quite a few of you commented here and in other ways that people reach me.
A lot of people said the same thing.
They said, hey, why don't you add a way on your app that people can donate to artists who are being deplatformed on other sites or just want another way.
Even if you're not deplatformed, you might just want another way that people can donate.
And so we added it. Now, if you talk to me a year from now, am I going to tell you that that's the biggest use of the app?
Maybe. I don't know.
Might be. But it would be based on what the audience asks for.
Can I be a parent expert on WinHub?
Yes, you can.
You can be a parent expert and you can set your price.
No Super Bowl ad for this app?
I love it.
Yeah, those are pretty pricey.
You can hear a lot more about the app in the next week or two.
We've got some exciting things besides that.
That's just one of the things happening, but there's a whole bunch of really important things happening that I'll tell you about.
Do you have stats on what different experts are charging?
I don't believe we...
No, I don't think we capture that.
It'd be easy to capture.
We have the raw data so we could, but I don't think that's on the dashboard that we look at our data.
But it's easy for you to just scroll through and you can see.
You can scroll through the experts and you can see the prices.
Somebody's saying, will I allow Alex Jones?
So here's the thing. We're an open platform like a telephone call or like a FaceTime call or any other communication tool.
So I'm sure there are things people could do that would cause them to get kicked off.
But we probably would not kick anyone off for doing something on other platforms.
But we'll see. I mean, I'm sure there's...
You never want to say never.
there are certainly things that could get you kicked off of any platform and I think we'd all agree on some of them somebody coming in here with the anti-semitic stuff I I can never tell...
When I see stuff like that, I can never tell...
I can never tell how serious it is or how troll-like it is.
It's scary either way.
All right.
Yeah, I'm not gonna say who's in or out, but if they're not bothering me, they're probably gonna be fine.
Would you like to see my view?
For those of you who can't be here It will take you over take a look
And then you will take the look of the light and the light and the light will be there So you see that island over there?
That entire island is owned by Larry Ellison.
Oracle founder.
So he bought the entire island.
Par three, now that's just a lawn.
Not bad, huh? The weather's been terrible, but...
Alright, back to me. Sorry, it's disappointing you have to look at me.
Well, I think that's all I have to say today.
And I will keep you informed of new events.
▲
Export Selection