All Episodes
Previous Next
April 13, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
44:46
Episode 490 Scott Adams: Sanctuary City Persuasion, Climate Change Solutions
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum hey everybody Stanley come on in here I'm a little bit late this morning.
I wasn't watching the clock.
I promise I was awake, but I wasn't watching the clock and here I am a little later than usual, but does it matter?
It does not. Because the deliciousness of the simultaneous sip cannot be diminished by simple chronological misgivings.
I'm not even sure that was a real sentence.
Doesn't matter. Because you're here, I'm here.
You've got your container, your cup, your mug.
You might have a flask or a tankard or a stein.
Maybe a thermos. But whatever it is, I hope it's filled with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for a simultaneous ep.
Yes, yes, I'm sorry I'm late.
But what a fun day.
So, I need to start this presentation, if you can call it that, by acknowledging my critics, who are going to say, Scott, are you sick of licking the president's shoes?
You say that everything he does is genius.
You are so not credible.
Now, of course, those of you who watch me know that I don't say that.
I criticize him on healthcare and statues and all kinds of stuff.
But... When he does something good persuasion-wise, sometimes it's better than anything anybody's ever done.
And I can't not say that, because it's true.
And it's, of course, my main domain of content.
So, when the news came out, it leaked that the White House was considering, merely considering, Shipping the illegal immigrants from the caravans into the sanctuary cities.
We all laughed when we saw it, but we thought, well, and I said this, well, that's never going to happen.
That's never going to happen.
And it didn't take long for the president to tweet, oh yeah, we're totally thinking about that.
We're totally considering that.
And... Maybe we'll ship them to the sanctuary cities.
Now, of course, the news and social media went crazy when he said that.
As Dana Bash said, as CNN, he, quote, owned the criticism.
And I thought, yeah, that's exactly what he did.
He took a bad news story because of the leak, and all it was going to be is, ah, these people are bad.
They're even considering doing this if they're so evil.
And as soon as he changed it from...
A rumor that we found out through a leak into a tweet completely puts it out there with no shame whatsoever and says, absolutely, we're not planning it, but we're strongly considering it.
Now, what does that do?
What that does is that, remember, it's sort of a slow news period.
There's not much else going on.
And he didn't want the weekend to go by with people talking about this rumor.
So he owns it, creates more news, but specifically he makes you focus on what he wants you to focus on.
So all weekend, if we're talking about this, and there's not much else to talk about, we're going to be talking about, hey...
Why can't the sanctuary cities agree to take all of the immigrants?
Why wouldn't they? But it gets better, because it turns out that that was just phase one of his persuasion.
Phase two he dropped, I guess it was last night, so it's a follow-up to his first tweet, and he says, if the radical left Democrats all of a sudden don't want the illegal migrants in their sanctuary cities, No more open arms.
Why should others be expected to take them into their communities?
Go home and come into our country legally and through a system of merit.
Now the key part of this tweet is, why should others be expected to take them into their community?
So he's moved the conversation from wherever it was, where nothing good was happening, nothing was getting done.
He's moved it to the public.
So, and of course the persuasion is always partly to Congress and partly to the public.
But this is squarely at the public.
This persuasion is just at the public.
It's not at the other politicians.
And he's forcing the question.
And he's forcing the question that the other side is determined to ignore.
And we may see him, I'm not going to predict this, but it would be an interesting play, we may see him ask the specific question, how many are you willing to take?
If he takes it to the third phase, and he might, he could extend this one more day by tweeting something along the lines of, we're looking for volunteers.
Volunteers. Sanctuary cities to volunteer.
Now, people are going to call him on this bluff, and I think a few mayors already have.
And I think they've said, yeah, we love immigrants.
Absolutely. Bring them our way.
But they know they're bluffing.
They're calling his bluff, but they're also bluffing.
So phase four is to say, thank you for volunteering.
How many can you take?
And that's the kill shot.
How many can you take is the end of the conversation.
Now, I don't know if he's going to take his two-phase persuasion into the third phase of asking for volunteers, volunteer sanctuary cities, volunteer communities, because those politicians are going to be on the burner with their own residents if they volunteer.
If they don't volunteer, then they're outed as liars.
Wait a minute. You've been saying that this will help you.
Why don't you volunteer?
And then once they volunteer, you take it to phase four, which is, give us your number.
Because we don't want to ship more than you want.
We only want to give you what you've volunteered for.
So tell us the number.
That's the end of the conversation.
Because the only way that we have this impasse, the political impasse, is because the people on the left refuse to say how many is the right number.
And this is forcing that question.
Now, he's not there yet.
The president hasn't gotten to how many.
That's where you need to get, though, because that's where everything falls apart.
The entire resistance is built on a transparent lie.
And the lie is that more is better to infinity.
More is not better to infinity.
I'll agree that more is better.
So let me say, you know, in case anything gets taken out of context, let me say as clearly as possible.
I think most people in the United States would agree with the general statement that immigration is positive for the country.
Most people, 90% of the country probably believes that.
Immigration and the 10% who don't believe it are not really serious players.
I'm not sure you could listen to anything that 10% says.
But 90% of us would say, we absolutely want immigration.
It's not about immigration.
But give us the number.
Everybody who likes immigration knows that there's some amount that's too much.
You know, you could die drinking water if you drink too much.
So water is great, but how much do you have to drink?
Because there is a point where you die from it.
So here's a question I haven't seen anybody ask, so I'll ask it.
We've been told for a long time that immigration brings down the crime rate.
If you bring in more immigrants, you have lower crime.
Now, when people say that, they usually don't distinguish between people coming in on airplanes and people coming in legally and people coming across the border illegally.
They sort of get lumped into this big group of low-crime population.
Now, I believe that's probably true.
It's very believable to me that the entire population of immigrants, legal, illegal, airplane visa type, border type, if you put them all together, I do believe that they would have a low crime rate.
So here's my question.
How many Guatemalans could you put in Chicago to get the crime rate down to normal?
I know, you're laughing right now, aren't you?
It's a funny question.
Theoretically, how many migrant caravans could you put in Chicago to get that crime rate down to something normal?
Because right now the crime rate in Chicago is through the roof.
In theory, if you add enough Guatemalans, you could get that crime rate down to something like, I don't know, my town.
Now, I'm not suggesting that's a practical idea, it's just a funny idea, but we're seeing that the We're seeing that the people's, let's say, hardened positions are a little bit ridiculous in some cases.
Now, I would argue that the question about immigration and border security are really persuasion problems at this point.
It's not about resources.
It's not about knowing what to do.
We actually know what to do.
We have enough resources.
It's expensive, but we can figure it out.
Everything is doable.
Except that our government is totally broken.
They can't agree on things they agree on.
Let me say that again.
Our government is so broken that they can't agree on things they agree on.
Because everybody agrees, well, we need some good, you know, border control, it's a crisis, we'd like to be good to the people who are just trying to make a better life.
Everybody agrees on all the big stuff.
And they still can't get it done?
So it's a persuasion problem.
It's not a physical resource kind of a problem.
It's not a problem where we can't figure out how to get it done.
People just don't want to.
It's a political problem.
And the president's persuasion about, hey, how about we take him to your neighborhood, is really highlighting the fact that the Democratic politicians are using The immigrants as pawns for their political ambitions.
So if you're going to talk about the president potentially using the immigrants as pawns, if you quote as CNN, they're using the word dump to make you sound like the president is more evil.
If you're going to dump him in our backyard.
So everybody got the memo to say dump.
Instead of relocate.
So all of the Democrats are referring to the immigrants as garbage.
I'm not making this up.
The president actually caused every analyst on CNN To refer to immigrants who have a desperate situation and are just trying to live and survive and make a better life.
People who, by and large, the vast majority of them, are excellent people that you would like in your life.
They're good people.
Overwhelmingly. And CNN has actually put out a memo to refer to them as garbage.
I'm not making this up.
I'm not making this up. Because they're all using the word dump.
Let me do a quick check here.
I just watched Databash say dump CNN. If you look at any article about this, let's see.
It looks like CNN... It's decided that reporting this story is not a winning position.
They've already backed off the entire story.
The president did the two most provocative tweets that we've seen in months and months, and it doesn't look like it's on their front page of their news.
I'm looking. I'm still looking.
There's one link to Dana Bash saying that he's dumping them.
So that's it. One link to a video.
That's it. That's the whole thing.
Yeah, I think, by the way, yes, let me give credit to Tucker Carlson, because he's the one who pointed out that they're all using this word, dumped.
And I don't know how you can...
How can you use the word dumped without connoting garbage?
I think the Democrats have to explain.
They have to explain why they're calling good people who just want to have a better life.
Why are they saying dump?
They need to explain that.
And I don't know who's asking. Here's the other funny thing.
Imagine if you're a Democrat and you're the kind of Democrat who likes to go on the news and give interviews.
And let's say you've already been scheduled for today.
Maybe you were scheduled a few days ago to go on today and talk about whatever topic.
You do not want to go on TV today.
There's no Democrat who wants to go in front of a camera today where there are questions.
Because if somebody asks the question, what do you think of this Trump tweet where they say they'll take them to your neighborhood?
How many can you take?
Now, they're all going to have to avoid the questions.
So they're going to have to avoid the question.
They're going to have to say, the president is using these good people as pawns in his political games.
They're going to have to talk about the fact that the White House denied they were going to do it before the president tweeted, which is not the story, right?
That's the B story.
The A story is you have to explain why you don't want them in your neighborhood.
And if there's some reason you don't want them in your neighborhood, as the President said, explain to us why somebody else should put them in their neighborhood.
Why would your reasoning not apply to everybody?
Why do you want to be treated special?
Why do you want to put it on the necks of the people who are going to be competing for jobs and may have to deal with the extra expense and everything else, while the Democratic leaders, who are the ones who said yes to this, Get all the benefits because nobody's moving into their neighborhoods.
They're just getting promoted to president if they do a good job, right?
So the politicians only have an upside to bring in immigrants because they can say, we're awesome, we get more votes.
The public doesn't have the same upside as a candidate because it's not their job to do this stuff so they don't get any credit, they just have the expense.
So, the President has done what he always does.
He takes the box and he shakes it.
How many times have I told you that, right?
If you have an ossified, you know, situation that's just stuck, and nobody can make it move, it's just stuck.
The President always does the same thing.
He walks up to it and says, what you got there?
Some kind of stuck situation?
Watch this. Okay, how's that?
And then everybody looks at it and they go, ah, my hair's on fire and all the variables are running around.
I don't know what happened. That was provocative.
You can't say that.
Are you kidding? I'm not sure if he means that.
Was that a leak or is that true?
Are you serious? And suddenly, all the variables are different.
Now, shaking the box usually would not be a good idea if you already had a way to solve a problem.
You wouldn't want to ruin the solution you had by shaking the box.
So you see him do it when there is no solution.
And when nobody else has a solution.
He just shakes the box.
Somebody says, does AOC shake the box?
Absolutely. Yes, she does.
Yes, she does.
Yes, it's the same technique.
So, for the next few days, the entertainment here is to watch Democrats try to avoid questions.
You're going to see more Democrats avoiding questions than you've ever seen in your life.
I also believe that all of the conservative outlets, the people who can send a report around, you know, the Fox News and the Breitbarts, they will not get any Democrat to talk to them, except for the ones that are paid to be on their payroll and don't do a good job of it.
No Democrat wants to be on camera.
Basically, the president just shut the Democrats off of television.
Because the last thing any of them want to do is get three follow-up questions of, but why wouldn't you let them in your city?
Well, suppose he doesn't force you to take them.
Here's what the reporter should ask.
Let's assume he doesn't force you to take them.
Why wouldn't you volunteer?
And if you do volunteer, how many?
How many is the kill shot?
Until you hear a reporter ask a Democrat on camera how many, you haven't had a good time.
You've got to see that question, because they're not going to be able to answer it.
And if they can't answer it, the next question is, how can we take you seriously?
Because this is a number question.
This is not a yes-no immigrant question.
And they want to treat it that way.
They want to treat it like it's a binary.
Like, immigrants, yes.
Or immigrants, no.
Because they can win that.
They can win the immigrant yes over immigrant no.
Because immigrants, in general, are positive.
But they cannot survive the question, how many?
And then when they can't answer it, How can we take you seriously if you don't have a number?
This is not a yes-no question.
This is a number question.
If you don't have a number, you should quit.
Let me say this as clearly as I can.
If you're a Democrat arguing for being, let's say, arguing for being lenient on immigration, And you can't produce a number for your, let's say, maybe it's just for your area, your state or your domain.
If you can't come up with a number that you think is okay per year, quit.
You should quit.
Because that's what you're paid to do.
You Democrats and you Republicans, you are paid...
To give us a number.
You're not paid to say, we like immigration.
I don't pay anybody to do that.
Right? Do you pay anybody to say, immigration is good?
Because we all say immigration is good if it's done right.
That's saying nothing. We don't pay you to do nothing.
Give us your frickin' number.
Right? Tell me the number, or quit.
That's the binary.
The binary is not immigration or no immigration.
The binary is you're in charge, you're a political leader, give us the number, or quit.
Quit. Like right now.
Just hand in your keys.
Here's a box for your shit.
Go clear out your desk. If you can't give us a number, quit.
And I'm serious about that.
Because this is a big, big problem.
And if you're not even going to pretend to do your job, and the president is sort of calling it with his tweets here, if you're not even going to pretend to do your job, clean out your desk.
Just clean out your desk.
Don't take our time.
Don't expect to get interviewed.
Don't expect ever to be on camera again.
Just clean out your desk.
You're not even a politician.
Give us a number. Alright.
I tweeted around an idea that the UN is kicking around for floating cities.
Floating cities.
So apparently there's an architect and there's some serious people who have figured out how to make these hexagonal floating little islands that you can connect together in lots of combinations.
To create a floating city, and apparently they know how to harden them so that they're safe from hurricanes and everything else.
Now, I'm not sure it's seasteading, because I believe that these are intended to be permanent locations, so they're not...
I don't think they're intended to float around.
I think they're intended to be anchored with some technology they have.
This is, yet again, one of those situations where you see the Adams law of slow-moving disasters.
When we have a lot of time to figure out how to get out of the way of disasters, we're really good at it.
Really, really good at it.
We have not yet solved this floating city challenge, but doesn't it feel to you like really solvable?
Wouldn't you say that as problems go, this probably is in the category of, you know, hard but very solvable if you had enough time?
Resources and attention.
And climate change might be that attention.
It could be that climate change is what makes floating cities work.
I understand that 50% of the population of the world is near the coast.
They live near the coast.
So there's a thought that they might need to relocate.
Now whether or not they do, I think floating cities make sense for a lot of different reasons.
Now here's the question I ask myself.
How would you power a floating city?
You know where this is going.
You know. How would you power a floating city?
Would you power it with solar and batteries?
No, we haven't figured out how to do that.
Would you run a long electrical cable under the ocean?
Possibly. I don't know.
I'm no expert on that stuff.
But maybe?
Maybe you could. Depends where it is.
Yeah, generation four nuclear is the answer.
So these small floating cities would be essentially nuclear submarines.
So we already know how to put a nuclear power plant on a floating, small floating thing.
It's called an aircraft carrier.
It's called a submarine.
So, in all likelihood, these floating cities also depend, also depend on Generation 4 nuclear.
Now, I tweeted around late last night, so it's in my Twitter feed.
Why am I having a brain?
Tim, who is at TimCast, why am I having a...
I know his name and I'm just blanking out here.
Tim, Tim.
Tim, Tim, Tim.
Sorry I'm forgetting your name.
I actually remember his Twitter.
Tim Poole at TimCast.
So his Twitter name is TimCast, C-A-S-T. And he did a long segment.
On the New York Times article about Generation Four.
And it was fun to watch him move from, apparently, some older, annotate thoughts about nuclear.
Yeah, thank you, Tim Pool.
Some annotate thoughts about nuclear that he admits he had to the newer stuff, the newer information about Generation Four.
And I didn't realize this, but apparently Tim had been in Greenpeace at one point, and he's an independent journalist, so he doesn't identify, I believe he doesn't identify either right or left, but he's now up to speed on this, and he's got a lot of credibility.
I know he has a lot of credibility among the people watching here, in part because he's not a member of a party.
He's not a partisan. But he also was a member of Greenpeace who just said, in the strongest possible terms, that nuclear looks like the only solution for saving the world if climate change is what the experts say.
So... Yeah, and he mentioned that he talked to Patrick Moore, I think.
So you're seeing now a...
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
But aren't you seeing Generation 4 nuclear just sort of become the thing now?
It has entered the zeitgeist, and it looks like it's penetrated both sides.
But for some reason, the major news organizations, except for the New York Times, who did that article, they're not really focusing on it, and I don't know why.
For example, I don't know why Fox News isn't talking about Generation 4 nuclear every day.
I don't know how to explain that.
I don't know why CNN... I guess I do understand why CNN isn't talking about it.
It's because it would give credit to the administration.
So apparently the Congress, as Tim Pool was pointing out in his YouTube presentation there, he pointed out that Congress is actually both sides like the new nuclear stuff.
So both Democrats and Republicans, by a solid majority, are pro-nuclear.
Did you know that?
Did you know that Congress is pro-nuclear?
Both sides. Now, when I say pro-nuclear, I'm talking about Generation 4, the new stuff, not the old stuff that's a little riskier.
So why are we hearing about this?
Or let me put it in more stark terms.
The biggest problem in the world, according to the press that leans left, is climate change.
And it's been solved.
That's not a story.
That the biggest problem in the world is solved.
Nothing. Not a headline.
Nothing. As far as I can tell, the left-leaning press Wants the issue more than they want the solution.
Of course they want the solution because they don't want the world to end.
But they certainly would rather go into 2020 saying that the Trump administration isn't doing anything for climate change.
When in fact, they solved it.
Now, when I say they solved it, I mean they've put in motion So the government has passed some legislation recently.
The Department of Energy is doing some things where they're promoting the rapid development of this technology.
So the government is actually doing stuff.
They're making test beds for testing, and they're taking fairly aggressive steps in that direction.
And it is the solution to what half the country believes is the biggest problem we've ever had, climate change.
Completely solved.
Or at least it's on the path to completely solved.
And it's just not a story.
Let's talk about 5G. I'm not up to date on everything about 5G. But here's what I know.
It's inevitable we'll have more 5G. It's inevitable that people will say it causes cancer.
I don't know if that's true. But we're definitely getting 5G. And there will definitely be critics.
And then the president, of course, wants us to be the 5G leader of the world.
I don't think that's going to happen.
I think South Korea will be the leader in 5G, but that's just me.
But here's the thing.
5G is not just faster internet.
If you're thinking, well, 4G is great.
It's better than 3G. I'm sure glad we went from 3G to 4G. It really makes a difference.
I'm happy. I can't wait to give to 5G even faster.
It's not that.
5G is civilization changing.
4G just made 3G a lot better.
And, you know, you could do a few extra things, watch the movies and stuff.
But 5G... Suddenly, that amount of speed makes all kinds of things possible that weren't possible before.
So, you're going to want examples, and it's almost impossible to give you an example because it's literally the future, right?
It's something that somebody will come up with that we haven't thought of yet.
It could be, you know, once you get your, let's say, your screen resolution up to, let's say, 4K or some high level, it could be that suddenly doctor visits are completely unnecessary because the doctor can then see the screen just as clearly as he would see it in person, even better, because he could just, you know, expand the screen and really see that bruise or whatever it is.
So you're probably going to see changes in healthcare because of that.
You're going to see...
Yeah, I mean, you could probably give me better suggestions of what's going to happen, but I think you're going to see that 5G is civilization transformed.
Oh, education.
Education and VR. Alright, so here's a...
I'll give you a specific civilization changing thing.
If you were to try to take an online class today, it would be just somebody standing in front of a screen talking and they just videotape them and then you watch them and you get bored.
But with 5G, you could probably transmit VR content.
In other words, that you could take your phone and whether you put it on the device that holds it in front of your head or there's some other glasses or something.
5G probably gives you enough speed to create VR or even adding things to your environment.
5G might be the tipping point.
Yeah, augmented reality.
We need all that stuff.
The point at which we mix the digital and the real world.
So right now the digital world and the real world are sort of separate.
You know, the digital world I have to look at.
It's on my phone. I hold it in my hand.
It's just compartmentalized in this little container.
So there's a very clear distinction between the real world, you know, with the things I touch and feel, and the little things that are in this little box.
When you get 5G, which will allow people to transmit completely...
That's the wrong word.
Experiences that are immersive.
That's the best word.
5G will allow Transmission of immersive experiences, so that if you've got your little glasses on that can see the world with things added, there will be digital things added to your real-world environment, and you might even be able to manipulate them.
You might be able to walk up to a virtual button that's literally just floating in the air, and you might be able to touch it and activate something.
Imagine that. An entire interface Four things will just appear floating in the air, and you can actually manipulate them.
Imagine that you take a class, and instead of learning about Napoleon trying to conquer Russia, it drops you into the battle.
And you're actually in the battle, and you're like, holy cow, I'm in the battle for Leningrad here, or whatever.
And that may be the wrong war, but you get the idea.
So imagine learning where they can drop you in this situation.
Imagine trying to become, let's say, an auto mechanic.
If you're learning to be an auto mechanic, you really have to go where there's an engine and there's like lots of different engines and you're not going to work on every one and you've got to wait your turn because they've only got a few cars and it's a big class.
All of that's hard. Now imagine you had the glasses on and you're in the virtual world and you're trying to learn to be an engineer.
The engine will float right in front of you and you could take pieces off, put pieces on, screw them in.
You'll be able to manipulate what looks like the real world and you can learn every engine and you might even be able to do it in an afternoon.
You might be able to learn in an afternoon What people have to take classes for for weeks.
Because you get to do it all, and you just say, okay, I'm done with this Toyota engine.
Give me a BMW. Okay.
Label it. Boop, boop, boop.
Labels come. Show me how to change the oil.
Boop, boop, boop, boop. Oh, okay.
Show me how to change the spark plugs.
Boop, boop, boop. Instructions come up.
Point to the spark plug. Alright, there it is.
Rotate it. Turn it around.
Take the spark plug out. What tool do I use?
Boop. Tool appears.
You could learn maybe at 10 times the speed.
So 5G may allow us to learn at something like 10 times the rate we can learn right now.
And it could be universal.
And we could all be learning at that rate, anything we want, any new skill.
I told you that I'm taking drum lessons online.
I'm using my own startup's app, WenHub.
So it's actually, the name of the app is Interface by WenHub.
And I'm taking lessons.
Now at the moment, the quality of the sound and the picture are limited by the bandwidth.
And also the size of the picture.
And also the number of cameras.
So we're bandwidth limited.
Imagine if my drum teacher, Michael, who, by the way, is available on the app.
If you want to take drum lessons, he's great.
Just search for drums and look for Michael Anitzberg.
And you can just sign up and schedule an online lesson.
If you don't like it, you don't have to take another one.
So that's the beauty of it.
But imagine if he didn't have any bandwidth limitation.
He puts a few cameras or devices, maybe an iPad or two.
One is looking down at the drums.
Maybe there's one on his foot because the foot pedal timing is one of the things you have to learn.
So it'd be nice to have a camera there.
One on his face.
It would be a completely different experience.
Just because of 5G. So everything's going to be changing.
5G probably is the tipping point that will make in-person education seem archaic and stupid.
So that's my prediction.
When 5G is mature, online learning, especially the immersive kind where you're actually part of the situation, the online learning will become far superior To in-person learning and it will change everything.
There will no longer be, imagine if you will, what does it do for the poor if they can afford a phone and maybe they need some glasses or something, but if they could get just those assets, a phone and some kind of a plan and some glasses if that's the way it works so that you can see your environment.
Suppose that's all it took For the poorest person in the country, who could at least afford those things, to get any education, changes everything.
Suppose you could drop your classmates into the scene so that you're all in the same scene.
You're not only experiencing an historic battle, or you're not just attending the...
The signing of the Declaration of Independence.
You're actually in the room when it happens.
And you look around and you see your other classmates.
They're also there to say, hey, Bob, good to see you.
Welcome to Philadelphia.
All right. So I guess I'm just full of good news at the moment because Generation 4 nuclear will solve climate change.
And it will be an enormous...
An enormous stimulus to the economy in a way that we've never seen before, especially helping the poor, because when you get the energy costs down, just everything works better.
Then you add 5G on top of that, and you have universal healthcare or something close to it.
You've got universal education or something close to it.
And I'll tell you, one of the ways that you know that your candidates for president are too damn old, you know, the Bernies and the Bidens and even President Trump, The fact that nobody is saying we want a free training in college and the way we're going to get there is through technology.
The fact that nobody has said that sentence just tells you they're too old.
Honestly, I'm calling on AOC or somebody, somebody under 100, to say let's get to free education but let's do it the smart way.
Let's not just keep building these brick-and-mortar things where kids can go to get bullied, which is about all you get out of school these days.
They can go to school to get bullied and to get drugs, basically.
Sex and drugs and bullying.
That's what going to school gets you.
But we can do better.
All right. I'm exaggerating a little bit.
Yeah, you need somebody like Andrew Yang, Candace Owens.
You need somebody... Somebody who represents, you know, the digital age.
Yeah, maybe Buddha Gigi.
He could do it. Somebody young.
All right. Somebody says, I'm retired.
I direct students to Khan Academy.
So I've heard that it's fairly popular that students will go to an actual class, take the physical class in an actual classroom, And then when they go home to do their homework, before they even do the homework, they watch the Khan Academy class for the same topic because it's just better.
However good your teacher is, The economy might be a little better and you can fast forward and you can do stuff like that.
By the way, if you only did one thing for a classroom experience, which is that you can change the rate of your teachers talking the way you can on a podcast.
You know, in some podcasts you can speed it up to 1.5 or two times the original speed.
People listen to me that way.
Some of you are listening to me that way right now, or you will when it's on playback.
So at 1.5, I talk like this.
It would be a lot easier. And if I had a lot of content, you could really hear it.
Because even though I'm talking very fast, you could hear everything I say.
And it really doesn't matter how quickly I talk.
You can actually follow me very easily.
So if you have a classroom situation in which you can speed it up to 1.5 or 2.0, you could very quickly get to the point where the teacher is stopping, is no longer babbling and gets to the actual content.
And then when you get to the actual content, then you can slow it down.
And watch the part you need to know.
Go back, watch it again.
And then when you get to the filler, okay, now you're in the filler and the teacher is just wasting some time until he gets on the next topic, and then you slow it down.
That alone, just that feature, would make learning three times better?
Three times better, wouldn't you say?
Yeah, you could call it Ben Shapiro mode.
He does talk faster than anybody I've ever seen who could talk in public.
But I think that's a function of him being smarter than the rest of us.
You can talk fast if you're smart.
All right. So you pronounce it Buddha Judge, not Buddha Gigi?
Is it Buddha Judge?
Is that true, or are you pranking me?
I can't tell. Well, I just know that There are going to be some bad nicknames for that guy.
Must have been tough in high school, I'll tell you.
All right.
▲
Export Selection