Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 29, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:17:44

Episode 678 Scott Adams: Taking Guest Calls on Any Topic. Critics Welcome

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody!
	Wake up! Wake up!
	Come on in here. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
	Today will be an off-the-hook episode.
	Totally off the hook.
	Because I'm going to take calls from guests.
	And if you haven't noticed, I've got a few critics lately.
	Yes, I do. Hey Bill.
	Come watch the show. It might be a lively one today.
	Now, part of the reason I'm taking questions is because there's no news whatsoever.
	All the news today is just a repeat from yesterday.
	If you look at the news, it should just say, see yesterday.
	That's about it. But, before we get going, I know you want to enjoy the unparalleled pleasure of the simultaneous sip, the dopamine hit that makes everything better.
	And all you need is a sing-along, sing-along, a cup or a mug or a glass of Stine, a chalice, a tank or a thermos, a flask, a canteen, a grail, a goblet, a vessel of any kind.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
	Join me now for the simultaneous sip.
	Go! All right, as promised, I'm going to take some calls.
	Any topic you like.
	The only thing you can't be is long-winded and boring.
	Got it? So it can be any topic, but, well, I'd probably stop you if it's something X-rated, but it can be any topic, any criticism.
	It just can't be long-winded or boring.
	Let's see who we got. All right, looking for somebody who's looking for a fight.
	I'm going to...
	I prefer people who show a picture.
	So let's add Toussaint.
	Well, that may have worked.
	Toussaint, can you hear me?
	Did I pronounce your name anywhere near correctly?
	Yes, Toussaint.
	That's exactly what I said.
	Perfect. All right.
	What is your question for me?
	I have a question regarding, because I read your book, Win Bigley, and you talked about movies in your head.
	Yes. And all the movies told you that Trump was going to win.
	Correct. But you recently said that the movies in your head were telling you that Kamala was going to win, but now she's on the ropes.
	No. So I've made predictions based on different strategies for predicting.
	So when I've used persuasion as the primary variable, when there was something special about the situation where that one variable stood out, which is rare.
	Normally, everything is a multi – I'm trying to keep my cables with my cat who's going crazy here.
	Normally, there would be lots of variables and you'd have to assess them all and that's difficult.
	In the case of Trump running for president, his toolbox of skills was so extraordinary.
	It was sort of like watching somebody go to a stick fight but instead of bringing a stick, he brought a flamethrower.
	So in that very special case, it was a mismatch.
	So that's what allowed me to call that correctly.
	Now, in the case of Kamala, I did not make any predictions based on her...
	Persuasion, because I didn't really know what it was.
	I hadn't really watched her enough to know if she had any persuasion game.
	Turns out she doesn't.
	She has no persuasion game.
	One of the worst I've ever seen in a politician.
	I was basing that entirely on what the Democrats would think would be their best chance to win, which would be somebody who checked enough boxes, you know, senator, California, woman, person of color, I had some experience as a senator who was young enough.
	So it was a demographic call, which under the only way that I saw that that could go wrong was one of the ways it went wrong.
	So either something weird had happened and she'd pull down, then I'd be wrong.
	And of course you can't predict that.
	The other thing that I suppose I should have been more aware of, but I didn't see coming, I had a blind spot for it, is I really didn't imagine any candidate who could be that bad.
	It just jumps off the page when I see her in public.
	I think, oh, that's worse than every person who did an interview on every news station today.
	Every pundit, every senator, every congressperson, every non-political person who is just a pundit, 100% of them do better every time they appear on TV than Kamala does any time she appears on TV. I should follow Kamala on Twitter, and I hate to see pictures of her laughing.
	It's so unpresidential.
	It's crazy. Yeah, and I don't know if she has any friends or advisors who can tell her directly, it's your cackle.
	You've got to get rid of the cackle.
	That doesn't work for anybody.
	Did I answer your question? Yes, thank you very much.
	All right, thank you. And we will...
	Look for another guest.
	And don't be afraid of being a critic.
	Looking at your pictures.
	Looking for whoever looks like they might be contentious.
	So Alexander, coming at me.
	Who apparently, Alexander has left.
	He's left the building. Let's go for Richard.
	Richard, come at me.
	Can you hear me? How are you?
	Do you have a question for me? Well, I'm wondering about Adam Schiff and his testimony the other day.
	Wouldn't that be perjury unless he, like, laid out that it was parody before he did it, or after he did it even?
	No. No, because it was close enough to being obvious parody that he'd have a defense.
	You can't convict people on ambiguous stuff.
	Things like that would have to be really, really cut and dried, and that wasn't.
	Even when I listened to it, I remember listening to it the first time before I knew it was parody, and even I could tell, what?
	He's making stuff up.
	And then when he got toward the end and he explained why he was saying it, it was obvious to me it was parody.
	So if there's somebody who's a regular watcher who can tell it's parody...
	It's not a defense that maybe somebody else couldn't.
	Does that answer your question?
	Well, that's kind of the sound bite that everybody takes away, though.
	And it's pretty dishonest, I would think.
	Oh, it is? Yeah, it's dishonest.
	Yeah, it's dishonest.
	It's dishonest and it's unethical.
	And it's very effective.
	But it's also what both sides are doing all the time.
	He did it in a particular way.
	But every time either side makes some wild, exaggerated claim, you know, they're all...
	Even if they become falsified later, the claim is still out there.
	Unfortunately, you just have to look at that as persuasion, but it does fall into a protected class.
	He is legally allowed to do that with no penalty whatsoever, except whatever penalty voters want to put on him.
	They're playing games, but there's that.
	Yeah, it's pretty bad.
	Thank you for the question.
	Take another...
	And by the way, you can come at me.
	Don't be shy if you've got a problem with anything I've done.
	And I'm sure you must.
	All right. Guest, can you hear me?
	Thanks, Scott. What's your name?
	Daryl. Daryl.
	What's your question for me, Daryl?
	Well, I was going to comment on the Adam Schiff thing also, just how effective it's going to be as the persuasion But the other caller covered that.
	So the two movies thing, what can we do to try to merge the two movies?
	Because it looks like the country is just so completely divided.
	And living in two different realities, what can we do to try to bring that more together?
	You can't. It's just impossible.
	Yeah, no, you can't. You can't bring the bulk of the people anywhere.
	People are so locked into their team.
	And because it's a team sport, the people who are, let's say, the thought leaders on each side don't want you to change teams.
	So as long as your team is saying, no, no, don't go to that other team, they're all bad, and we will mock you, and the people you love will no longer care for you if you go over there, people are locked in.
	There's some few people who are in a strange situation in the middle who maybe for whatever reason haven't committed.
	Maybe they have a single issue that would flip them one way or another.
	I mean, I could think of If I thought about it for a minute, I could probably come up with a single issue that I would care about enough that it would swing me.
	Probably pretty easily I could do that.
	But no, it is not a reasonable goal to try to bring it all together into one movie.
	And by the way, it's never been one movie.
	There's never been a time that that was true.
	The only thing that's different is that both teams at this point can see it's a different movie.
	And remember, for those of you who've been watching, this is what I predicted would happen.
	So in 2015, I predicted we'd be here roughly in the next few years because of the way Trump was teaching us about the fluidity and subjectivity of truth.
	Now what I mean is, his style was so freewheeling in terms of the facts that he completely ignored the The details of, is this technically true?
	And most of you said, well, nobody could get elected under those circumstances.
	And I said, not only will he get elected, but he's going to change how you see reality.
	And this two-movie thing is the primary change.
	I think before, if you'd said, why do people disagree?
	And fact-check me on this.
	Use your own memory. Say, five years ago, if the two sides disagreed, what would you have said about the other side?
	You'd say they're stupid, they're uneducated, they're selfish, and they haven't looked into it hard enough.
	And you would just say, well, there are smart people and dumb people in the world.
	Thank God I'm one of the smart ones.
	Meanwhile, the people you're talking about would be having their own conversation and it would be just like yours.
	Well, they disagree with me because they're stupid and selfish and they haven't looked into it.
	So, that has changed now, and we understand that people of similar intelligence are on both sides.
	It was never about intelligence, and it was never about how much you understood or researched.
	Those things changed nothing.
	And you can demonstrate it by watching person after person who does the research and You know, and there's smart people on both sides.
	There's just no, there's no way to defend the idea that all the smart people ended up on one side because it's objectively, observably not true.
	So the model that now people have moved to is that even smart, well-educated, well-informed people can be in a bubble and they can see the other bubble, but here's the change that's coming.
	They couldn't see their own bubble.
	That's what I'm going to change with my upcoming book, LoserThink.
	So LoserThink is designed so that you'll be able to see other people's bubble pretty clearly, but you were already there.
	I think most of us could see the other people's bubble.
	What you can't see is your own.
	So I'm going to help you see your own at the same time you're seeing the others.
	So you'll see your own through the process of seeing other people in their bubbles and then You'll learn that maybe you're the one in the bubble on some topics, not every topic.
	Awesome. I also have a guest recommendation.
	If you could get Brad Parscale on to talk about social media and what they're going to try to do, I think that'd be really informative for them.
	That's a real good idea.
	I will add him to my short list.
	Yeah, because going up against Google and Facebook is probably going to be the biggest challenge this campaign is going to have.
	Yeah, for sure. All right, thank you so much.
	Thank you, Scott. All right, we'll take another caller.
	Yeah, Brad Parscale would be a great guest, wouldn't he?
	Mrs. Swift.
	Is Mrs. Swift live...
	I am there. Do you have a question for me?
	Well, yes. You did such a good job, I thought, with your letter to the children regarding climate change.
	Thank you. I was wondering if you would consider doing something like that about a talent stack for children.
	For example, in school, kids are given goals.
	And I encountered a kid the other day who said, well, I'm not going to do anymore because I reached my goal of doing, you know, problems.
	Yeah. I'm saying you need a system to go forward, not just a goal.
	I'm just wondering if you could facilitate that with a letter or an essay or something like that.
	Well, so I wrote my book, How to Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
	So that book was written for somebody who's 14 or older and it has the systems versus goal and the talent stack and a lot more to put it in context.
	So it's really written for somebody who has learned a lot, might have potential, but they haven't figured out how to have a strategy to put together all the things they do into something good.
	And I know that a few people have summarized the book.
	If you can believe this, there's somebody who writes books that are a summary of other people's books and puts it on Amazon.
	So if you had to, you could find the shorter book version.
	And I think if you Googled, you could find other people have summarized it.
	But you make a good point.
	There might be some kind of entry-level summary of that that could go on two pages Digestible by that class.
	I'll think about that. That's actually a pretty good idea.
	Thank you. All right.
	Your signal is breaking up, so I'm going to go to another caller.
	That was an interesting idea.
	I might do that if I get a little bandwidth, as they say.
	Let's go to Hansel.
	Hansel, can you hear me?
	Hansel, are you there? Do you have...
	I'm good. Do you have a question for me?
	First thing, I would like to say I'm a big fan of your work.
	Thank you. I'm from Singapore.
	So how do you think the geopolitical situation would pan out given all this sabre-rattling by the Democrats presently?
	Which situation in particular?
	The current move to impeachment.
	Oh. Well, I would...
	I see we lost your connection, but I'm going to guess that you can still hear me or you can hear it on playback.
	I don't think anybody thinks impeachment is going to happen in the sense that it would go all the way through the Senate and the president would be removed from office.
	So I think most people see that as a political effort.
	I don't know what percentage of Democrats are...
	Oh, there you are again.
	Hansel, we lost the connection, but I'll give you the answer publicly here.
	I don't think there are too many Democrats who think this is really an impeachable, rises to an impeachable situation, anything that the president is doing.
	But for political reasons, they want to.
	They want to act like it is.
	So I think it's mostly theater.
	And by the way, have you ever tried calling people out for theater?
	I've done it, and it just stops people cold.
	You can stop a conversation like that.
	When somebody has the fake outrage online or something, and somebody's like, my God, my God, how could this person have possibly said that?
	Can you believe it?
	Oh, what words?
	The words are hurting me with their wordness.
	You get that person online.
	Have you ever just said, you know, your theatrics are noted, your fake outrage is noted?
	I sometimes use this, your artificial outrage or your phony outrage is noted.
	When you call somebody out for phony outrage, it stops it like that.
	You should try it at home.
	The next time you get the phony outrage, just say, your phony outrage is noted.
	And don't treat it like it's more than that, because it is.
	It's completely phony outrage.
	When people are outraged on behalf of other people, they're not outraged.
	That's theater. People are socially acting out their outrage in a way that they think will position them well with whoever's watching.
	So if you call it out as outrage theater, it stops it immediately, because everybody knows that's what it is when they're doing it.
	So, you probably have noticed or even been disappointed that I rarely give in to outrage theater.
	When I'm outraged, I want people to die.
	I mean, like I have real outrage.
	So, for example, when I'm outraged that China is sending us boatloads of fentanyl and killing tens of thousands of Americans, I'm not...
	That's not pretend outrage when you hear me say that.
	When I say that I want Chinese citizens dead, that's literal.
	I want them actually not breathing anymore.
	I want them executed for killing tens of thousands of Americans.
	So when you see me outraged, I try.
	Maybe I failed at one point or another, but I certainly try to make sure that I'm not going to pretend I'm outraged unless I want somebody dead or removed from office or something important.
	Otherwise, if it's just because somebody got upset, I'm not going to be more upset for them than they are for themselves.
	If you've offended whatever group or entity, maybe you could be offended and maybe you have a good reason to, but I'm not going to be more offended than you are on your behalf.
	Third party offense isn't a thing.
	So call it out. Call out the theater of outrage.
	It stops it immediately. It's a good trick.
	Alright, let's take somebody else.
	Let's go to Stephan or Stephen.
	I can never tell, but we'll find out.
	Stephan or Stephen, are you technologically connecting to me?
	It doesn't look like that's going to happen.
	Oh, there we are.
	Stephan, Stephen. Is it Stephan or Stephen?
	Stephen. I know I do.
	That's because I have a friend named Stephan.
	Anyway, so do you have a question for me?
	Did I lose you? Bad connection.
	Let's try somebody else.
	Somebody has an account named the Jacob Wall Bravery Museum.
	I'm not going to pick that one, but that's pretty funny.
	I'm a super badass. I'm choosing people who have actual photos for their profile.
	Hello user, can you hear me, caller?
	I do very well.
	Great. What's your name? Sergio.
	Sergio, good to have you.
	Do you have a question for me? Yeah, the question is on the word grifter.
	I'm sorry, can you say that again?
	On the what? Oh, the word grifter?
	Oh, grifter, yes.
	Yes, yes. Okay, so you mentioned a few days ago that you noticed that it was being used Like, a weapon.
	Yes. And you saw signs of it, and you said, I'm going to deactivate that word.
	Right. And I saw that you started using it here and there.
	So, that was pretty clever.
	You know, if you had seen that, if you had been working for Trump two years ago, and you had seen Sheldini use the dark word, what would you have done back then Well, the dark word is really hard to deactivate because it's a tough one to turn against your enemy.
	You notice that the fake news is something that the president has been using quite effectively to delegitimize his critics, both in the press and otherwise.
	And fake news was originally used against Trump and Trump supporters.
	So it was originally used against him, but since he has the more powerful voice, he gets all the attention, he's good at branding, he just took the weapon out of their hand and said, no, you're fake news, and I'm going to make that my thing about you, and he did.
	It was one of the greatest persuasion moves of all time, is taking the phrase fake news, snatching the gun out of their hand, turning it around, and using it effectively.
	Now, you couldn't really do that with Dark, because Dark is designed to fit a specific candidate, right?
	There's something about Trump that people were worried about in general, and then they put a word to it.
	It wouldn't have worked as well.
	On Hillary, you would need a different word that people already were primed to think about her.
	But grifter is such a fresh word, and it's flexible enough that it kind of works on everybody, which is part of its power, but part of what allows you to deactivate it, is that it can be overused.
	In other words, dark is something that people on Twitter are unlikely to call each other.
	It was a very specific word that kind of couldn't work for anybody but Trump at that time.
	Whereas grifter, you can call everybody grifter.
	So by overusing it, you can essentially dilute it until it's this homeopathic bunch of water that means nothing.
	All right.
	Thank you for the question.
	Thank you, sir. Alright, I thought I was going to get more critics here, but I suppose that's okay if I don't.
	Alright, Lisa Lott coming at you.
	Can you hear me, Lisa? Do you have a question for me?
	Well, not really a question so much.
	I just wanted to push back a little bit on something that you said the other day about Greta Thunberg.
	A criticism, I hope.
	Alright, go ahead. So, there was a word that you had called her, and people like her that are on the autism spectrum.
	But you were talking about how these kind of people can't really lie.
	Oh, they can. They can.
	It's just, it's very different in their situation.
	You were just going to fact check me on that?
	Yeah. Yeah, a little bit, just because I have a lot of people like that in my family, and I can tell you that they absolutely can lie and lie really, really well, but they just happen to believe their lies.
	Yes, that would be a fair thing to say.
	Yes, everybody can lie.
	I don't think, you know, probably not many exceptions to that, but the difference is that people on the spectrum are more likely to be socially honest Because it's a little less obvious to them that you might take it wrong.
	So when I'm talking about they can't lie, that's really more in the social context.
	But anybody could, let's say if they wrecked their car and they needed to lie about it and stay out of jail or something, whatever the situation was, everybody could do that.
	Yes, you're absolutely right.
	Okay. Thank you.
	Good correction. That was worth saying.
	Thank you.
	Let's take Raul.
	Raul, if you connect in a minute, your technology is working.
	Raul, are you there? Hello, do you have a question for me, Raul?
	I thought I'd just take a little bit of a critical side, just to give you a little more of that perspective.
	Thank you. Yeah, just to help with the conversation.
	One thing I'm really concerned about is what I call conflating the bad guy with people who, what I call the bad guy, whatever they've done that's bad, a perpetrator or whatever, with people who share the same characteristics such as the same nationality, ethnicity, Or particular characteristics such as gun owners for nationality would be Chinese.
	And what I mean specifically is that if, for a lot of people, as a foreigner myself, and my background is, I'm particularly sensitive to this, but as a foreigner myself, what happens is a lot of people don't, they don't really make necessarily a distinction between Losing your connection a little bit.
	I think where you're going with that was we should speak with more precision about when we're talking about the government of China versus the people of China.
	The people of China, as far as I know, are awesome, as far as I know.
	I mean, the people, the Chinese citizens who immigrate to this country, first generation, second generation, All awesome.
	Some are members of my family, as it turns out.
	So, yes, that's a good practice every once in a while to step back and say, you know, when I'm railing against the Chinese country, that's about the government, and that's about the government situation.
	But the people love them.
	I'm always careful about that when I talk about Iran.
	Because the Iranian people are amazing people, and we would love to be closer to them.
	It would be productive and beneficial for everybody, but the government of Iran is a problem.
	I could do that better when I talk about China, and you're absolutely right.
	I think that's a good correction.
	I will take that correction, and I will look for opportunities to make sure that I'm clear about that.
	I think that's a fair statement.
	Alright, let's go to Dan.
	Dan just jumped in here.
	He's ready to go. Dan, Dan, Dan, can you hear me?
	Dan? Hi.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	What's your question, Dan?
	Well, I spoke to you a few months back about the death penalty.
	I don't know if you remember. I asked if you could give me 90 seconds and I could change your mind, and I didn't.
	But that's okay. You're very influential and I appreciate all your work and I just wanted to know if you made any decision on changing your mind on support of the death penalty.
	Why would I change my mind?
	Nothing's changed since I made my mind up.
	I understand that, but the reason I ask is because I noticed that your statement basically is if you support the death penalty if found guilty.
	No, that's not exactly my view.
	So if you're going to go to criticize it, you need to stop and let me give you my view and then see if you still criticize it, okay?
	Okay, sure. Yeah, the only cases that I would be in favor of the death penalty It would be if the crime is somewhat horrific, and I'm not going to stop to identify the dividing line between what is horrific enough, but let's just say, conceptually, something horrific enough.
	For example, if you were a major fentanyl dealer and responsible for a dozen deaths, that would be the death sentence.
	In my mind, that would be horrific enough, just as one example.
	But here's the thing. In order for a death penalty to be effective, this is my own personal view, you should need something that would guarantee the person was at least present at the time of the crime, like a DNA. As opposed to an eyewitness that's unreliable.
	So if you can't place the person scientifically with, let's say, a video, a picture, DNA, a fingerprint, then I would not be in favor of it, even if they got a conviction, because that would leave a little bit too much doubt in my mind that you got an innocent person.
	I would never, ever support the death penalty based on an eyewitness account alone.
	Or plus, you know, eyewitness plus some, you know, trivial information that supported it.
	So given that distinction, that you'd have to know the perpetrator was in the room at the time of the crime and connected to it.
	Go ahead. Do you still have a question?
	No, that's fine. But if you're aware of the amount of people that are actually put to death by the state that are actually...
	Found innocent afterwards.
	Found to be innocent afterwards.
	Even the people that are being released, even up to today, you can read articles about people being released and the mind being police putting thoughts into witnesses' heads and false testimony and all that kind of stuff.
	That's why my rule is to work against that.
	Because the odds of somebody being convicted for a murder and they were in the room coincidentally but they weren't the murderer...
	That's pretty low. That's not really the argument, though.
	It's the if found guilty part.
	I mean, there's clearly innocent people being put to death.
	Right. That's why my rule that you have to have some scientific way to place them.
	I'm pretty sure that close to maybe 100%.
	The people wrongly convicted to die was based on eyewitness testimony.
	Wouldn't you say? No.
	Well, yeah, but many other things, too.
	Incompetent legal system, lawyers who are incompetent, bad policemen.
	I mean, there's a lot of...
	Yeah, you need all of that, but...
	Well, that actually happens, though.
	It's the if-bound guilty part.
	But I don't believe there's any case where they had somebody's DNA... At the murder scene of the accused, I don't believe we've ever had somebody who had their DNA found at the murder scene and then later was found to be innocent.
	I believe that situation has not occurred.
	Yeah, but people have been put to death for far less than that, for just witness stuff.
	Sounds like we're on the same side there.
	Thanks for the question. That was one of those cases where we were on the same side by acting like we weren't.
	I get in those situations a lot where people imagine they're disagreeing with me, but they're not.
	So let's see if Amber has something.
	I'm trying to mix up the gender selection, but I've got more men than women listening to this.
	Amber, can you hear me? Do you have a question for me, Amber?
	Actually, I want to sneak two in if I can.
	The first one is a personal thing.
	I was really intrigued by your description of coffee after you got your sense of smell back.
	And I wondered about, in particular, what it was like to get your head shaved by Christina after you had your sense of smell back or if there was any other incident that was particularly interesting to hear about.
	Yeah, so when I got my sense of smell back after a decade or so of not having smell or taste, that happened recently, if anybody's just joining us.
	It was at first overwhelming, and I'm not sure that my sense of smell came back in, let's say, as a whole, or if it kind of came back in parts or something, because for the first several days, everything smelled flowery and perfumey To the point where it was grotesque.
	There was just so much smell.
	And then it started to settle down a little bit, which is what I expected.
	I expected that my brain had not been used to filtering these new inputs, and it took a while to take the avalanche of smells that were coming at me.
	And my brain, presumably, this is just an assumption, needs to know how to filter it To keep it from intruding on my thoughts all the time.
	It sort of just filters it down until I'm just smelling things that I care about or that are different or something that might be dangerous, I suppose.
	I'm a little closer to that, but my sense of smell is crazy now.
	Like my ability to pick up a smell when I enter the room, I can enter a big room and go, and I can see like a little bottle or something in the corner and I know exactly what's in it.
	It's like, it's crazy. Now, I don't know that this will last.
	Yeah, that's crazy.
	What was the second question? Well, the second one was, I saw an article from American Thinker about Hillary.
	Did you see that one?
	I did not. Oh, well, it was kind of interesting because it was talking about how she...
	Seems like she's getting back into her fighting sort of image and that she seems like she might try to get back in the race once Biden gets booted out.
	I didn't put a lot of stake in it, but I just thought it was interesting to think about if there was one new way that she would find her way back in.
	No, I think that the odds of Hillary getting in are zero, but Hilary being smart and Hilary apparently liking the limelight and she apparently enjoys the speaking and the writing of the books and the attention and the interviews and stuff.
	I assume she wouldn't be doing it unless she liked it.
	There's something in it for her.
	So it's sort of a perfect situation.
	Do you remember in the last election when Mark Cuban...
	with the idea of running for president?
	Yeah.
	I said at the time that it was a brilliant thing to do because it put him in the conversation as president.
	So even if he decided not to do anything, which that's what he decided at least that cycle, we all started thinking of him as a legitimate political candidate because we'd been talking about it.
	So I always said it was brilliant to make the country talk about it, even with no, maybe not too serious consideration of running that time.
	Because it sets him up that if he ever decides to run in the future, well, the public's already primed.
	They've already had the conversation about him, and he hasn't worn us down by actually running for office yet.
	So it's kind of brilliant. So with her, do you think it's that...
	Are you trying to say that it's just not ever going to happen, or do you think it's that she would never really try?
	No, there's no chance she'll try.
	My take on it is that she knows that if she didn't start early and put her best effort into it and line up all of her advisors and everything, it wasn't going to happen.
	And I think she knows the country's a little bit exhausted with her, but it's still very smart for her to make us talk about it.
	Because the talking about it is what gets her speaking fees up.
	It's what makes you want to buy a book.
	It's what gives us nightmares.
	All right. Thank you for that.
	We're moving on. And next caller is...
	I'm going to pick Tebjer.
	Let's see how closely I came to pronouncing that name right.
	Tebjer, come at us.
	Will your technology work?
	It's spinning and it's doing nothing.
	If it doesn't do anything, we'll try somebody else.
	Okay. That one went away.
	Let's try Flow Night.
	Flow Night. Flow Night.
	Flow Night, can you hear me?
	I can hear you.
	What's your question for me today?
	So it's a two-part question, Scott.
	Okay. On one hand, what do you think is the most efficient way to elect a president?
	And the second part is, being that a lot of people don't have sufficient knowledge of politics, why should they even be allowed to vote?
	Okay. The most efficient way to vote, I would think, would be some system where you could vote with your electronic device, your phone, your laptop, whatever.
	But here's the key, that while you're voting, a video, a live video is taken of you voting, your face and your fingers, Touching the things that you wanted to touch and maybe giving you some kind of receipt and then also maybe giving you some way to electronically check later to see that your vote was recorded the way you did it.
	So you could have some kind of a password fingerprint system or something so that you as an individual Could check after the votes have been counted to make sure that the database that has your vote, you know, you'd have some kind of a connection to it and you can see it got recorded and recorded correctly.
	Now as long as every person who votes has a video of their device, of their actual face in the motion of voting, they can always check themselves to see their video was correct and anybody who ever wanted to check the validity of a vote Could check against their ID, for example, and against the actual video, and they could look at the ID and look at the video and say, this isn't the same person.
	And maybe your device is giving you a location at the time of your vote.
	So let's say if you're not within the Voting polling range that you would have walked to, maybe it doesn't count, unless you say you're an absentee or something.
	So in other words, there probably is an electronic system that will be way better than what we're doing, like way, way better.
	Because right now, you saw in Project Veritas, I think it was James O'Keefe, on the last election, he walked into a polling place without his ID, and they said, sure, you can vote.
	You don't need any ID. Like, that actually happened.
	You could completely eliminate that with an electronic one that anybody could go check.
	Now, your second part of the question was, remind me of the second part?
	Oh, we lost them.
	Can somebody remind me of the second part of that question?
	It was, how to make the voting better efficient.
	Oh, it was a good question, too.
	Can somebody remind me in the comments?
	All right. Well, maybe if...
	Let's see if he came back.
	If he did, I might have to ask him back in.
	Oh, we lost the connection.
	Too bad. Darn it.
	That was a good... I remember it was a good question.
	I was going to do the first one so I could get to the second.
	But let's take another one.
	Nancy, can you hear me?
	Coming at you. Nancy?
	You don't sound like it, Nancy.
	Hey, I got a lifestyle question.
	Sure. I'm in my 50s, and the last few years, I kind of hit the wall.
	I know everyone's different, and I'm just trying to figure out a way of...
	You hit the wall in your career, you mean, or in your life?
	No, I'm sorry. Physically.
	Oh, energy-wise.
	Well, we've got a bad connection here, so I'm going to try to answer your question without hearing all the details, if you don't mind.
	So my book, How to Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big, I talk about systems for your diet, My observation is that when you're young, you don't need to do anything special.
	You've got more energy than you actually need.
	But when you get older, you need to do just about everything right.
	And by everything, I mean you really need to take care of sleeping and having a system for sleep.
	For example, I'll just give you a sense of it.
	Part of my system is I always get up around the same time real early, and I always try to go to bed around the same time.
	Don't ever do the, well, it's the weekend, so I'll stay up till 3 a.m.
	because I can. Sorry, my cat's getting in the way here.
	So you need a system.
	You need a room that's completely dark.
	You need to not do other things in there besides romantic things plus sleeping, because otherwise you associate those things with your bed.
	You don't want to associate your bed with Reading and watching movies and stuff because then that's what your body gets used to and it keeps you awake instead of going to sleep.
	So there are a whole bunch of things.
	You could just Google how to get better sleep.
	But likewise, you need to make sure that you're not eating too many carbs.
	The other day, just as an example, I had some french fries for lunch, which I would normally just never do, and it ruined the rest of my day.
	Now, once you start noticing That if you eat the wrong foods for lunch, the rest of your day is toast.
	It takes you a long time to realize that that's not a coincidence.
	And it probably wouldn't even be noticed if you were 19.
	You probably wouldn't even notice the difference.
	But at my current age, if I eat french fries for lunch, I'm done doing everything for the rest of the afternoon.
	If I don't take a nap, my whole day is gone.
	So look for that correlation between bad carbs and sugary things and simple carbs and your energy.
	And then the other thing is work on your fitness because if you, I would say once you reach a certain age and maybe you're there already, it's better to do something every day than it is to push yourself to whatever your physical limit is.
	So I no longer exercise to the point of exhaustion.
	I exercise to give myself energy and vitality, make all of my You know, my body works just the way it's supposed to, you know, get the fitness sort of flow going so that your body is used to processing at a higher level.
	And so I would say it's a combination of probably five or six different things.
	And then here's my super secret trick for keeping your energy up.
	Are you ready? Yeah, I'm ready.
	You should have something in your life that you look forward to so that when you wake up And, you know, if you're like most people, I don't know most people, I'll just say myself.
	When I first wake up, I don't know who I am.
	Like, literally, the first second, I don't know who I am.
	And then it comes to me, oh, I'm this guy who's a cartoonist, I live in a certain place, I have this certain life, and, you know, the next second it comes to me.
	But, somewhere around the third or fourth sentence, or third or fourth second of waking up, I think about what I should be doing that day.
	And I like to have at least one of those things that's exciting, even if it's unlikely, which is the key.
	So I always have a few things going on in my life, and I always have at every age.
	Well, actually, I have a lot of things I want to do.
	It's like my ambition, I have all that.
	And it's just like...
	It's harder to activate that.
	Oh, okay. Then you need my new book, Loser Think, and I'm going to give you a preview.
	So you have exactly the problem I've got a chapter on, and here's the trick.
	It's a hypnosis trick.
	You ready? So I'm not going to hypnotize you.
	I'm just going to tell you something that a hypnotist knows.
	If you can get somebody to do something small, such as tell them that their pinky is moving, they feel a pinky twitch, Then you can get them to think that their hand is moving and that it's light and that it's floating.
	So the hypnotist will start with the smallest thing that's true.
	They might say, your eyes are blinking because your eyes usually blink.
	They might say, you feel a little something in your hand because just the suggestion makes you think.
	I think I feel a little something.
	I don't know what it is. So they start with the smallest thing, and then your body can be easily coaxed into bigger things, including getting up and doing something.
	You can do that with yourself when you are locked, what I call couch lock, sort of a stoner term.
	But when you're just on the couch, you're like, there are 10 things I need to do.
	I can't do anything.
	Here's the trick. You ready?
	Talk to your pinky, literally say to your pinky, twitch, and then move it.
	Then say to the rest of your fingers, wiggle.
	Then say to your hand, move your arm, and then stand up.
	And as stupid as that sounds, watch how well it works.
	You can take yourself off the couch in five seconds, when before you were just locked in, because your brain was saying, I want to, but I don't know why I'm not.
	Because you actually don't know why you're not.
	You can't even answer the question to yourself, right?
	I want to get up. I want to do these things.
	I have this list of things to do.
	But I notice that I'm not.
	Why am I not?
	Move your pinky. Move your hand.
	Move your arm. Stand up.
	And then ask yourself, what's the smallest thing you can do toward one of those goals?
	Really small. And say to yourself, okay, I can't do the whole goal.
	It's too big. And I don't have that much time.
	But I could look something up and write down a phone number so that when I do have time, I can call that phone number, if that makes sense in your process.
	Or I can do a little research, or I can set up a time to have lunch with somebody.
	Smallest, smallest thing you're willing to do.
	What you'll find is that by day two, you'll do a second small thing, And you'll say, I've done two things.
	By the time you've done four or five things, you start feeling the feedback mechanism.
	You feel, hey, I'm a guy who did five things toward my goal and it felt pretty good.
	I actually feel some satisfaction.
	And then it becomes self-sustaining after a while.
	Occasionally, you'll have to go back to moving the pinky.
	And to move yourself back in it.
	But always take the big thing that's stunning you into inaction and shrink it down into its smallest micro step.
	It's the micro step that works.
	I always have probably 20 different projects going at any time because I like to stay busy.
	But most of the time, I can only do a micro step with each one once in a while.
	And when I have that chance, I'll take the micro step.
	So, for example, I have a bunch of things I need to fix in my house.
	You know, it's reached that age.
	So I've got, I couldn't think of all the things I had to fix.
	It was too big. So I said, okay, I'm going to buy some note cards the next time I'm in CVS. So I buy some note cards.
	Actually, I think I just ordered them from Amazon because it was even easier.
	Take my phone out, give me note cards, and they arrive in the mail.
	Next day, I take my note cards and I open them up and I say, you know what I need to do with these note cards?
	I wish I had a pen right next to the note cards.
	So I get a pen, a Sharpie, and I put it next to the note cards.
	And that was it. That was my work for the day, was taking a Sharpie from the place it was, moving it across the room and putting it next to the note cards.
	That's how small a step I'm taking.
	Next time I'm out there, I see the pen, I see the note cards, and I think of a task.
	I go, ah, I'm going to write down a task on one note card.
	And then I'll put one task on each note card, and that's it.
	I wrote down two tasks.
	And then I did something else.
	All right, so you see how small the tasks can be.
	All right, I think that's the answer to the question.
	Let's take another caller here.
	Let's take Ken.
	Ken's got his hoodie on there in the picture, looking dangerous, with his beard and his hoodie.
	Ken, are you there? Hey, do you have a question for me?
	Do you believe in climate change?
	Do I believe in climate change?
	Well, I would not put it in those terms of belief.
	Here's what I would say. What we know is that many scientists believe it.
	What we know is that the basic chemistry is probably true in the sense that there are some elements of climate change which are more credible than others.
	So the more credible part is that they probably have the physics and the chemistry about right.
	What is less credible is the economic projections that tell you how much you should care about it.
	Those seem unlikely to be true.
	But, and this is the coolest thing about climate change, it doesn't matter because what you should be doing is exactly the same whether climate change is real or not, which is getting aggressive with nuclear, staying aggressive with green technology until we can get that as right as possible.
	Some would argue green isn't as green as it should be, but everything gets better over time.
	So I think we should be pushing on every door All the time, especially nuclear, because even if there's no climate change risk, if you're in that camp, it doesn't matter.
	You still need lots of energy, and you want clean air, and you don't want to be burning coal, and you'd rather have clean electricity.
	So nuclear is the answer no matter what.
	So from a risk management perspective, you can actually say it doesn't matter.
	Because we should be pushing as hard as we can on every one of these technologies.
	And you have the free market is working on, I think there are at least half a dozen companies, probably 25, I just don't know about them, that are working on various carbon capture technologies.
	Now before somebody jumps in and says, the plants need carbon, you can't take the CO2 out of the air because it's platform.
	Before you say that, let me say that I have confidence in humanity that we would unplug the carbon capture machines if we started taking too much.
	I think we catch it in time.
	So, the market is basically taking care of the problem.
	And even if you were to take the worst case scenario by the UN, the most official estimates is that they would decrease our GDP by 10% in 80 years, which we wouldn't even notice.
	Because by then, our GDP would be, if things are just normal, if we just go into the future in any way that is recognizably similar to anything that's ever happened in the past, our economy will be about five times bigger then.
	So we'll lose 10% off of what it could have been, but you won't even notice.
	So we'll have so many resources.
	We'll have robots that can relocate buildings from the beach.
	We'll have desalinization that can suck the ocean water out and put it somewhere else.
	I mean, we'll have so much of it.
	What's that? Did you know the government has known about the threat of climate change for 50 years?
	Well, the government depends who you're talking about.
	When you talk about climate change, there's no such thing as the government.
	There are just lots of government entities with different opinions.
	And some of them have been that it's going to be too cold and some that it's too warm.
	I don't subscribe to the theory that because they've been wrong 50 years in a row, which I think is roughly true.
	Climate predictions have been wrong 50 years in a row.
	I don't subscribe to the fact that therefore it's wrong now.
	Unfortunately, that doesn't follow because there are plenty of examples in history where something wasn't true until it was.
	We went thousands of years of history where people tried to have human flight, you know, putting wings on themselves and various contraptions, and it never worked until it did, and then one day it worked.
	Fusion is likely to be like that.
	We may go a hundred years without developing a fusion system, Energy reactor, but then we probably will.
	The smart people say that it's down to an engineering solution, not even a science solution.
	Excuse me. So that's my general answer, is that you don't need to solve for whether it's true or false climate change, because all of the solutions are identical either way.
	Thank you for the question.
	All right.
	Let's go to Pablo.
	Hello?
	Pablo, are you there?
	I can. What's your question?
	There's maybe a suggestion on your topic when you talk about gun control.
	I don't disagree with most of what you say.
	I like the line of thinking and I kind of wanted to...
	Tap onto it or tag onto the end of it.
	Now, one of the places I disagree is in digging into the actual statistics of how these things are happening because if you really want to solve the, I guess, get the number down like you usually kind of address it as far as getting the number of deaths down, then I think it's important to dive in there and find,
	you know, particularized solutions to each kind of problem because Yeah, you make a good point.
	There is no one change to the law, unless they, I suppose, took all your guns, which isn't really practical.
	There's no one change to the law that fixes all those completely different problems, like you said, the problem of a kid getting a hold of a gun versus a criminal versus anything else.
	So yeah, you have to chip away at all of those things.
	So I think in the case of the children getting a gun, well, there should be gun locks and gun safes and stuff like that.
	But yeah, that's a good point.
	We should not treat it like it's one solution that can fix everything.
	All right, thank you. Thank you.
	Let's see, Carlos.
	Carlos, are you there?
	Carlos, can you hear me?
	Alright, Carlos disappeared.
	A little shy guest syndrome there.
	Let's try Matt. Matt, Matt, Matt.
	I'm good. Do you have a question for me?
	Three things. One's a guest suggestion.
	Professor Richard Muller, Berkeley, he's a physics professor, very pro-nuclear.
	Okay. I don't know if you've heard of him, but...
	No....very pro-nuclear for a long time.
	There's innovative solutions for, like, disposing of the waste.
	So... Okay, that was just a suggestion for what?
	A guest. Oh, I guess.
	Okay. All right. Any other questions?
	Do you think Trump is purposely not talking about – so during the general election when asked why aren't we doing something about climate change, he can just go, I've been trying to fix it for four years.
	What have you been doing? Well, I'll tell you what I know.
	I know that within the White House and certainly within the administration, people are pro-nuclear.
	And I know that Rick Perry in the Department of Energy, is that the official name?
	But he's funded through the Department of Energy new testing facilities for nuclear fuels and I think he's also funding some carbon capture technologies, etc.
	So within the administration they are actually doing What look like exactly the right things.
	I don't know if they're doing enough of it or it's big enough, but they're certainly doing the right things.
	That's unambiguously true.
	So Rick Perry is sort of nailing it over there.
	It's funny. Because Trump is president, he gets all the attention, but he's got some cabinet-type people.
	Who are really killing it.
	Rick Perry is one, and Health and Human Services is another, that are just really knocking the ball out of the park lately.
	They should get more attention. Just putting this out there, maybe not getting a lot more attention is what's allowing them to do so well, because no one's yelling at them or saying they're this, that, or the other.
	Yeah, maybe their lack of attention is what's helping them.
	That's true. Alright, so, now the question is why Trump I know he's mentioned nuclear, but it seems like it's always at the end of a long paragraph.
	Nuclear power. That's your impression of it too, right?
	Yeah. He never mentions it, but it's obviously there.
	Here's my hypothesis, because I've been puzzled by it myself, because the day that Trump says out loud, nuclear energy is the right answer with or without climate risk, if he says a sentence like that, the election is actually over.
	Let me say that as clearly as possible.
	If Trump...
	Ever comes out and says in clear language, you know, the climate risk is something that people will always disagree with.
	But the one thing that the Democrats and the Republicans, at least the ones who have looked into it, because Cory Booker, Yang, Biden, they're all pro-nuclear.
	A lot of folks are pro-nuclear.
	Gates, Bill Gates.
	So Trump could say the one thing that we know is the smart thing to do, no matter how big the risk is, is we should be as aggressive with nuclear as we possibly can.
	And look, we've already started in the Department of Energy.
	We've done these things.
	It's the way to go.
	Will you join me?
	And it will take care of my problem, which is keeping the economy running, keeping energy costs low, which is basically a raise for everybody.
	If you lower energy costs, every low-income person just got a raise.
	The quality of living increase.
	Quality of living, right. So if the president came out and said, look, I'm going to build you a world with the best technology.
	The current generations of nuclear power have never had a problem.
	We do know how to figure out how to store waste and process it, etc., and we can get better at it as well.
	Join me in solving all of our problems.
	I'd like the economy to be humming.
	I'd like the low-income people to get a raise.
	I'd like to have enough energy.
	I want clean air. I want clean water.
	And nuclear gives me all of those things.
	If you're concerned also about climate risk, I can solve that for you without even paying attention to it.
	In other words, having a robust nuclear program is sort of the only way you can solve climate risk if you believe that's a real risk.
	Yeah, and that's why I was wondering, do you think he's keeping it in his back pocket when they come after him for climate change?
	Let me just finish the thought.
	I don't believe that President Trump feels – and this is just speculation.
	I can't read his mind, right?
	I don't believe he feels comfortable about the topic, meaning that it took me a long time to be able to summarize that complicated topic the way I just did.
	So I can say, because I've looked into it enough, and Mark Schneider and Michael Schellenberger have helped me a lot, to understand that there are different generations of nuclear.
	The old stuff was dangerous, but we don't make that anymore.
	The new stuff has never had a problem, and the newer stuff, the Generation 4 stuff that's coming online, can't even melt down if it tried, if they design it the way they're hoping to.
	They're hoping to design it so that if there's a problem, The new generation will just stop working.
	They won't melt down because they can't.
	The design won't allow that to happen.
	Yeah, I was going to say Google S2G Reactor.
	It's Navy's designation for liquid sodium, I think.
	But that's a good example of why I would imagine any politician, and Trump in particular we're talking about, would not feel comfortable talking about it.
	Because the last thing he wants to do is be up there and say, yeah, I'm all pro-nuclear, and then have somebody ask the question.
	What about STUG or whatever you just said?
	And then have them say, I don't even know what that is.
	Because remember, this topic is really complicated and it's really hard to boil it down to old technology was bad, current technology has never had a problem, future technology can't have a problem because it will be built so you just couldn't even have a problem and that we're really close to that.
	And that's not even Fusion, that's just Generation 4.
	So If you add that to the fact that there's no other source of carbon-free clean energy that's even competitive with nuclear and the fact that it's very complementary with wind and solar because it fills in the gaps, etc., I believe the president could get to a point where he could simplify nuclear down to build the wall.
	Now, he might have to oversimplify it in the way that build the wall is a gross oversimplification of what immigration requires.
	But it might be what sells it.
	So the trick would be how to make President Trump comfortable speaking on the topic in a way that he can shrink the complexity down to a visual slogan or something that he can sell and still not get kneecapped or caught off guard that somebody's got a clever question that he can't handle.
	So I can see why he wouldn't want to venture into it Because it's going to scare some people and it comes from him.
	It might sound extra scary, etc.
	But if you imagined Bill Gates meeting with Trump, talking about...
	And by the way, this would save the...
	Here's a suggestion for saving the world.
	Are you ready? I don't believe, or at least I've never heard of this happening, that Bill Gates has ever had a meeting with President Trump while he's president to talk about nuclear power.
	I don't believe they've ever met to talk about that subject.
	I'm sure they've met at some point in the past.
	So, if they did, that would give Trump all of the, let's say, intellectual cover he would need to go full-throated pro-nuclear.
	The moment he does it, he wins re-election.
	And I wouldn't say that about any other topic.
	There's no other button that says Stark as this one, because it takes climate change off the table, and it's sort of all they got, right?
	Yeah. Because their only scary thing is climate change, and you can't win without scaring the other team.
	So if you take the scare away, they're disarmed, and the president could do that, but he's got to bring in either a Michael Schellenberger, he's got to bring in a Bill Gates, ideally both of them.
	And then use that meeting, publicize the meeting, and then after the meeting, do a statement.
	Bill Gates is standing next to you, and you say, I just met with Bill Gates.
	I've got to say, he's very persuasive.
	Bill, tell us what we talked about.
	Then Bill Gates gets up there and goes, well, you know, and says essentially what I said, which is nuclear is the only way forward, and it's the new stuff that will bring us there.
	And then the president says, you know, Bill Gates...
	Bill Gates says this is the way to go.
	And Bill, would you agree with me that you should do this no matter what you think about climate change?
	And then Bill Gates says, absolutely.
	Because he would. Because nuclear is the right solution either way.
	At that point, the election's over.
	The election's over.
	It's over. Because if you take climate change off the table, at least in the sense of having the only legitimate plan, that happens to match Yang and Cory Booker's plan and even Biden's plan a little bit.
	That's it. That's the end of the conversation.
	The election is over if Trump meets with Bill Gates and they do a joint statement.
	That's the end of the conversation.
	You wouldn't even have to wonder.
	At that point. All right.
	Did that answer your question? Yes, it did.
	Thank you so much. Thank you.
	Good one. All right.
	Let's take another one.
	It's interesting that Bill Gates literally could save the planet if climate change is the risk that people say.
	Bill Gates could save the planet.
	Hello, caller. Can you hear me?
	Hello, do you have a question for me?
	Well, I first of all would like to say thank you so much for doing these periscopes and I get and I think all most people do get a total charge out of your Dale impression.
	And I'm not trying to put more work on your plate, but I'm wondering, have you ever considered doing a political cartoon using Dale as the character?
	because I know you don't do political commentary through Dilbert, but it's just so effective amplifying and highlighting how irrational the far left can be.
	And I think you bring a lot of credibility.
	Obviously, you bring a lot of credibility to the argument because you claim you're even more far left than Bernie.
	Yeah.
	Well, I've thought about political cartooning, of course, because, you know, I'm a professional cartoonist, and you can't not think about all the ways that you could be a cartoonist.
	But I find political cartooning sort of too simplistic.
	You know, you work all day to make one point that people were already thinking, which is what makes a political cartoon work.
	You're just amplifying what people are already thinking.
	If it was something that they weren't thinking and it was outside of what they would like to think or might think, it just doesn't work.
	So political cartooning is...
	As a creative endeavor, it's too small.
	Whereas when I do this, you can see that we can just go everywhere.
	Well, it's great. I love when you bring Dale to the conversation.
	It's just such a hoot.
	And the Pope was very good, too.
	The people who missed the introduction of the Pope are years ago.
	Well, thank you very much, the recurring characters.
	All right, I appreciate that. Thank you.
	All right, let's take another call.
	Jonathan looks like he's full of vim.
	I don't know what vim is, but Jonathan, are you there?
	I said you're full of vim, and then I don't even know what vim is.
	It's like vim and vigor, but I think it's a good thing.
	It looks like you're lively.
	What is your question for me? So I have a comment and a question.
	So literally re-watching a YouTube periscope of yours, I was compelled to make coffee to participate in a simultaneous sip with coffee I didn't even want to make.
	And the harder I thought about not being persuaded by you, the more determined I became to make that pot of coffee.
	You're not alone. I hear stories about this all the time.
	I think everybody who watches these, you know that I'm a trained hypnotist and I write about persuasion, right?
	And it's no surprise, nobody should be surprised, that the simultaneous sip is overtly, you know, I'm not trying to hide anything.
	It's meant to have an influence on you.
	And to develop a habit which you would find pleasurable.
	Now part of the problem is that your brain is saying, ah, I don't want to do this.
	But the other part of your brain is saying, if I do, I might enjoy it more because that's how I've developed a habit that I just feel like I'd enjoy it a little bit more with coffee.
	Now it turns out that coffee increases your mood.
	So you're improving your mood at the same time you're watching my show, and then those two things get paired.
	So one of the basics of persuasion is pairing things.
	So any good feeling, you pair it with whatever you want somebody to feel good about, and the feelings conflate.
	And I hope it's obvious to everybody so that nobody feels like they're being manipulated or tricked, because I'm doing it As visibly as possible, associating the goodness of coffee along with some feeling of camaraderie.
	One of the things about Periscope that's different from any other medium is that this is personal and mass broadcast at the same time.
	I don't know that anything has ever been like this before because I'm mass broadcasting, but yet this feels like a one-on-one conversation, like literally right now.
	But all the time.
	Because I'm looking at real people's comments.
	I'm thinking about real people.
	I'm feeling your feedback in real time.
	I'm responding to the feedback in real time.
	It's like this connected entity.
	And I try to do my part, which is to make it pleasurable and enjoyable and make sure you get something out of it.
	And so the coffee association creates this little habit that This should, and not just should, it obviously is working, over time with reinforcement, and the reinforcement is what makes it powerful, you'll feel a sense of connection to the other people.
	You'll feel a sense of completing a task, maybe.
	It's like, hey, I did my sip.
	And you'll feel the little rush that the beverage gives you, even if you're drinking another beverage you like.
	So it should, over time, have exactly the effect that you described For something like a third of the people.
	There are always going to be other people who are just dipping in and out, people who have never had the first sip of coffee, etc.
	But for about a third, I would predict would have a pretty strong attraction to having the simultaneous sip.
	So thanks for that comment. One question.
	And to be fair, I only participate in about 50% of the sips.
	That said, I do have a question.
	So Mark Cuban did mogul support at Wired and answered questions over the internet.
	And his last comment was responding to Yang asking him to run for president.
	So Cuban Yang 2024, what's your take?
	Well, I don't see Cuban getting into it this time.
	2024, 2024.
	Oh, 2024? 2024, Yang-Cuban probably would be impossible to beat.
	I would agree. They've already got my vote.
	Yeah, and here's the thing.
	It's not entirely clear to me that they would even be obviously Democrat or obviously Republican.
	I feel as if they're carving out a new category.
	Of pragmatism.
	You know, nobody's tried that.
	As weird as that sounds, nobody's tried pragmatism, meaning if there's a science to it, follow the science.
	If there's no science to it, see if you can find the science.
	And if you can't do the science, maybe you can test it in a small way.
	Test it. So if you put a put a Yang and a Cuban together, By the way, do we assume that Cuban would be president in this arrangement, or are you assuming Yang is president?
	Obviously Cuban.
	Okay, we're on the same page.
	Cuban would be far more likely to be the president candidate of those two.
	I, for one, would be really, really interested in a pragmatic set of candidates, and I wouldn't really even care which party they ran in.
	As long as they were, let's say, intellectually and otherwise committed to following the facts and testing and educating the public and Maybe testing some things small.
	Just a rational set of ways to move forward.
	That would look really, really appealing to me.
	I gotta say, that would be really appealing.
	Because we don't have anything like that.
	And it's because we don't really have the personnel in place that could pull that off.
	Could Mark Cuban and Yang pull off the first rational administration?
	I think they could.
	I think they could.
	They're both special personalities.
	You don't get a Mark Cuban every day, right?
	You don't get a Trump every day.
	You don't get an Andrew Yang every day.
	They are special characters, and I think that they could have a special role.
	2024 is going to be interesting, and if Mark Cuban decides to run in 2024, I'd hate to be running against him.
	I'll tell you that. So that's all for now, and I'm going to end it here, and I will talk to you all later.

▲