All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 5, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
42:24
Episode 778 Scott Adams: Iran's Next Move, Persuasion Errors, and Excellent Coffee
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, come on in here.
It's time for coffee with Scott Adams.
Seems like we have just one topic these days and we're gonna hit it.
We're gonna hit it hard.
We're gonna hit it 52 times.
But before we do that, there's a little thing I like to do.
It's called the simultaneous sip and I know you like it too.
And that's why you're rushing to get in here on time.
Imagine how bad you'd feel if you were in the, let's say, the third 1,000 people to come in here and you missed the simultaneous sip.
Well, you'd feel sad all day.
No, you wouldn't.
But it's better if you have it.
And you're going to have it right now.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.
Go. Oh, yeah.
Yeah, that's good. Getting the day started there.
Well, let's talk about the stuff.
Are you ready? We got stuff.
Dan Crenshaw, Representative Crenshaw, tweeted that he said, for those claiming there's, quote, no plan, talking about the Iranian stuff, that this was, quote, reckless, Dan Crenshaw reminds us that step number one of any strategy is to stop letting terrorist regimes attack us without repercussions.
Reasonable? Seems reasonable.
If somebody is punching you in the face repeatedly, what's your strategy?
Well, I think your strategy is, let's find a way to make you stop punching me in the face.
First, I'll work out some of the nuance of my strategy later.
But at the moment, I need you to stop punching me in the face.
I think the president retweeted that.
Here's the worst pundit take on the whole Iranian situation and the killing of Solomon A. All right, you ready for it?
And watch how many times you hear it today.
You're going to hear this, the worst opinion, the most useless thing you could ever hear from lots of pundits today, and it goes like this.
Well, I'm going to have to do this in the image of Dale.
Let me give you the worst take on the Iranian murder of Solomon.
Well, the murder of Solomon.
And it goes like this.
It's going to make things more dangerous.
Do you get that? More dangerous.
Risky. It's risky.
Something bad might happen.
I've got a feeling that killing somebody at the top of their government might have repercussions.
There might be something bad that happens because of war.
Okay, scene.
Can we all stipulate?
Can we all just bring together?
Can we hold hands and stipulate that we all kind of know that this might be a little risky?
Can we all agree on that?
Can we just never say it again?
Can I turn on the TV today and not hear a pundit look at the camera and tell us as if we had not figured this out on our own?
You know, killing their number two guy who's the head of the military?
In my expert opinion, this could cause a little risk.
It could get dangerous.
Okay! We know that!
Right. Enough of that.
Did you all see the video of the car that drove off a cliff in front of another car?
Now, if you haven't seen it, the scene is this.
There's one car that's filming, just because the scenery is good, they say, and they're driving along this sort of a mountainous cliff highway, and the ocean is down the cliff to the right.
And as they're coming to a turn, The people who are filming in their car see in front of them another car going right in front of them off the road and like jumping in the air and off the cliff into the ocean.
Have you all seen that video?
And it's been a few days now and they can't find any sign of the car and nobody has reported missing that would be identifiable with that car.
Let me add something to this story.
Deepfake? If I were going to fake an interesting thing to make a viral video, how hard would it be if I were driving down the road and I saw, let's say it was just coincidentally, there was a car that pulled in front and there was a little parking area in which the car went past it and allegedly into the ocean.
If I saw that car do that, how hard would it be for me to Photoshop that car going not just into the parking space, but 20 feet further and often into the ocean?
It wouldn't be hard, right, if you were good at that kind of stuff.
So, I ask you this.
Did a car...
Coincidentally get videotaped perfectly driving off a cliff, and then nobody found any parts and nobody reported anybody missing.
Keep in mind that the video of the car is very clear, so you can tell what make and model of the car it is, and it was widely reported.
Are you telling me that nobody who knows somebody who would own that car has reported that they're dead or missing?
No, maybe. It's entirely possible.
It's entirely possible that it was a real car that went over a cliff and we just haven't figured out the details yet.
It's possible. But all I'm saying is, we will all agree that that would be easy to fake.
Easy for someone who knew how to do that stuff, right?
So, if even the video of a car going off a cliff is fake, how do you know what's real anymore?
And one of the things that's going to be really, really tough to sort out with this Iranian situation here, watch me bring it back, bringing it back to Iran, is this question.
What do the Iranian people think about the murder of Salameneh?
Do you think you know?
Do you think you know what the public reaction is?
Not the official reaction, but the public reaction in Iran.
Do you think you know what that is?
So, we're seeing the two competing narratives take off.
I guess Salmane, there was a funeral service for him, I guess yesterday, and there were just a god-awfully huge number of people attendants.
And I saw one commenter say that you shouldn't believe the Saudi Arabia shills who are saying that people are actually happy about Soleimani being killed.
And that if you look at the number of people who attended the funeral, you can see it's a really big deal over there.
Now, here's the thing.
Can you and I tell if it's a big deal yet, or what percentage of the Iranian people are happy about it, indifferent, or angry about it?
Can you tell?
Because I can't tell.
It's too early. And if you can't tell if a car went off a cliff, will we ever know, ever, will we ever know what was the internal opinion of this?
Now, I can tell you that I continue to hear anecdotal reports.
So anecdotal means there's no scientific reason to assume that this is a general truth.
But anecdotally, I'm hearing trickles of people who know people in Iran or connected to Iran who are saying that they're happy.
But it's anecdotal.
Likewise, the pictures of the millions of mourners going to the funeral is anecdotal.
Because no matter how many million went to the funeral, how many million did not?
How many million were dancing in their living rooms instead of going to the funeral?
We don't know. So it doesn't matter that a million people went to a funeral.
Let's say it's the biggest funeral of all time.
What does it mean? Well, it doesn't mean anything, necessarily, because you don't know about the people who didn't go.
You know, there are more of them.
Obviously, there are more people who didn't go, but they had lots of reasons not to go.
They were busy, they had other things to do, it's too far away, too expensive, whatever.
So watch for the battle of persuasion on the question of what the Iranian public thinks of this.
All right. The president has this week, I think, his worst week of persuasion.
I say this again for my continuous critics who say, no matter what the president does, you say he was amazing and great and persuasive.
Well, no, that's just not true.
I don't say that. And I'm definitely not saying it today.
I think today might have been the president's biggest persuasion mistakes.
Now, I'm not counting, let's say, you know, things he said off the top of his head that got him in trouble.
Because you could find lots of examples of things he said, you know, just spontaneously that got him in trouble.
But with his tweets, you know with his tweets he puts thought into it, and he's trying to persuade.
So if he puts thought into it and tries to persuade and it's still wrong, I'm going to call that out.
And this is the wrongest, in my opinion, it's the worst performance of the president on persuasion.
And here's why. So he did his tweet where he warned the Iranians via tweet, but of course he's talking to his domestic people at the same time.
And he's saying that the U.S. has targeted 52 Iranian sites, Which he goes on to say represents the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago.
And then he says some of those targets, the 52 targets, are at a very high level and important to Iran and the Iranian culture.
This is so bad.
I mean, this border is unimpeachable, I'll tell you.
This is really bad.
And those targets in Iran itself will be hit very fast and very hard.
The USA wants no more threats.
Here's everything that's wrong with that.
By bringing the past into it, the 52 American hostages that were taken, was it 1979?
Or something? By bringing the past into it, he has complicated a simple situation.
I was praising aggressively, aggressively praising Lindsey Graham's approach, which I believed incorrectly.
I incorrectly believed was also the President's approach.
So it turns out that Lindsey Graham and the President are not on the same page, which is a surprise.
On this topic, it's a surprise.
It wouldn't be a surprise on topics in general.
But on this topic, I'm surprised to find out that the president is not taking Lindsey Graham's advice and or lead on that, or vice versa.
And so the president's talking about 52 sites including, and this is just so bad, Iranian culturally important sites.
Oh my God, that's bad.
When the president says we're going to attack culturally important sites, he's not talking about the government anymore.
That's a big fuck you to the people of Iran.
And I can't support this.
Absolutely do not support this.
If we were to attack important Iranian cultural sites, I mean, I assume we would only attack them if they had some military presence or something.
But given that we have options, such as the oil refineries, I would say this is the worst performance we've ever seen out of the president, persuasion-wise.
Now, I'm going to soften this a little bit.
Because there's an argument on the other side, and I don't want to ignore it.
I'm just going to say that I prefer the argument that I'm giving you.
The argument on the other side is that telling them there are 52 sites, it does make them spread their defensive resources out.
So it could be that the entire plant is still the refineries.
So here's...
I'm going to give the president a trap door.
Like there's one way that this can still make sense and still be right.
But I don't think it's true.
I'm just going to mention it so all the possibilities are on the table.
One possibility is he's just making it harder for the Iranian military to defend the places we're actually going to attack, if we need to attack.
So if that's what he's doing, not so bad.
Because it could be that the military had just said to Lindsey Graham, Lindsey, you fool.
You've told them exactly where we're going to attack so they can put all their defenses there.
But I don't know if they have enough defenses to stop our attacks on a refinery.
Does Iran have such good defenses that they could really defend refineries?
I don't think so.
But But that would be, just for completeness, I'll say, if the reason he's doing it is to make Iran have more trouble defending everything they need to defend, that could have some utility.
Somebody says I'm mind reading.
That's the opposite of what I'm doing.
I'm telling you that there are possibilities that all fit the facts.
How's that mind reading?
I'm giving you all the possibilities, and I'm not telling you that any of them are ruled out.
That's the opposite of mind reading.
Mind reading says you know what they're thinking.
I'm saying the opposite of that.
The opposite of I know what he's thinking is what I'm saying right now.
The other possibility is that...
Well, that's really the main thing.
It ratchets up the danger.
It makes it look like the potential is bigger.
Maybe it sounds scary, sort of bullying and threatening.
But here's another thing that's wrong with it.
It reframes it as revenge.
You can't do worse than that.
That's the lowest, worst job you could do on persuasion, is to reframe this thing as revenge for something that happened in fucking 1979.
Really? Do you know what's wrong with the Middle East?
This. This is what's wrong with the Middle East.
The Middle East is always fighting some war in the past.
They're always trying to reclaim the land that we lost a thousand years ago or 50 years ago or we're mad about that time this ruler did this or that other leader did this in the past.
Fighting the last war is the dumbest fucking thing that the president could do.
And bringing 1979 into this is probably his biggest mistake.
Now, again, let's show both sides.
So another thing that it could do is it could remind America of, let's say, the bad intentions of Iranians over decades.
So it could remind the American public, especially the ones who haven't looked into it.
Let's say you're 35 years old and you have no idea why we're mad at Iran.
You don't have the context.
Well, by bringing up the 52, it requires the news media to remind the American public of what Iran did in 1979, and they took some hostages.
It could be, and I'll just throw this down as speculation, because I would love to find out that there's something missing in my opinion, or at least my understanding, in which Would make the president's tweet actually smarter than it looks.
And I would love that to be true.
And it would be consistent with everything we've seen for several years if that turned down to be true.
So I would say there's a strong possibility there's something I don't know that's part of why he's tweeting this way.
Would we all agree that?
There might be something I don't know that would change how I think about this.
One of the things, and I'll just speculate, is that the Iranians may have threatened to take hostages.
So on the menu of things that Iran might do, one of the things that probably would bother us a lot is if they took hostages.
And the president reminding them that taking hostages won't work out for them, meaning that we're still going to get revenge for hostages they took in 1979.
It could be connected, meaning that it's a way to remind them that taking hostages will never work out for you in the long run?
Maybe? I mean, if we find out that that's the case, I would soften my opinion a little bit.
I'd say, oh, okay, this is really about hostage taking, and it's a warning not to do it.
Maybe? Possibly?
That's the best spin I could put on it.
And then he goes on to say...
Well, no, that's what he's going on to say.
Oh, it gets worse.
This is really bad.
It definitely is worse week, in my opinion.
Unless we find out some new information.
This is worse week. And then he goes on to tweet, the President does, the United States just spent $2 trillion on military equipment.
We're the biggest and by far the best in the world.
If Iran attacks on an American base, or any American...
We will be sending some of that brand new, beautiful equipment their way, and without hesitation.
God, I hate that tweet.
I really hate that tweet.
Now, does Iran know that the US military is so much bigger than theirs that they can't compete straight up?
Yeah, of course. Does Iran know that we have enough military stuff to do what we need to do?
Yeah, of course. Do we need to remind both the American taxpayers and Iran that we spent $2 trillion?
On Twitter, $2 trillion is trending.
And not in a good way.
Not in a good way.
It's trending as sort of a dick move.
You know what it sounds like?
Here's the framing that I get out of this.
The framing I get out of this is we spent this money, we want to use it.
This feels like we're going to fuck you up because we spent a lot of money on this stuff and we don't want to have a sunk cost.
That's not what it's saying, but that's how it feels.
It feels like we spent the money and we need to use this stuff.
Awful. Awful.
I give these two tweets absolute failing grades.
And by the way, I'm not anti-killing of Solomon A. So in terms of what the president decided, I don't know that that's wrong.
That might be right. But these tweets are way wrong.
All right. So we're learning a little bit about the president's decision-making, and here's the story that's emerging.
Stories say that the president was giving a range of options of dealing with Iran and that, and here's the funny part, they decided to give Trump one very risky option.
And the reporting says, and this sounds reasonable.
I mean, it passes the sniff test.
The reporting says that the military always gives them an extreme option so that it makes it easier to pick a moderate option.
In other words, the moderate option might look pretty dangerous, but it'll look less dangerous if you package it with other choices.
One of them is more risky.
So, I'm no military presentation expert.
But if I'm presenting options to a president who is named President Trump, do you feel comfortable going in that room thinking he's not going to pick the risky one?
Who was it on the military side, putting together the options, who said, you know, he's never going to pick this risky one?
Have you met the president?
Yeah, I think he might pick the risky one.
Which doesn't mean it's the wrong choice.
Let me be very careful.
Doesn't mean it's the wrong choice.
But if they went into a meeting thinking that President Donald J. Trump would pick the safe one, I don't know if they've ever met the president.
Have they ever met the president?
He does not...
You know, reflexively and automatically take the choice you think he's going to take ever.
He never takes the choice you're going to take.
You could give him 50 choices and rank them based on whether you would take them.
You know, rank them all 50 choices from the one you would take to the one you would least take.
He might take the one you'd least take.
That's so much built into his personality and part of his success, I would say.
Definitely part of his success.
Doing the unusual, doing the unexpected, doing the riskier than you would do, going further than you would go.
That's who he is.
So, it feels like a gigantic military mistake If they thought they were going to manipulate the President by giving him one option that looked extra risky, he might take that extra risky one.
So, note to self, if you don't want him taking the risky option, you better not give it to him.
So, Here are a few things going on on the question of the imminent attacks.
So there are two things we know.
One is that apparently there have been 13 rocket attacks, generally in the direction of American interests, I guess, over there in the Middle East.
And then there was another rocket attack last night, I guess, or two rocket attacks, that occurred near an Iraqi base that hosts coalition troops.
So it's a rocket attack that was near an Iraqi base, but there's some coalition troops there.
Does that mean that it was a response?
It's kind of murky.
There was also some kind of action in Africa at a base where sometimes Americans use the base, but we don't know.
And it was al-Shabaab who attacked, but al-Shabaab Usually doesn't like Iran, but sometimes they do.
You know, they've worked with Iran in the past, so even though they normally don't like them, maybe they're doing a favor.
Is it a coincidence that they attacked a facility that might have some American interest?
So, we might see this infinite gray situation where we're not entirely sure if Iran is even retaliating.
All we see is a bunch of people who may or may not like Iran doing things they may or may not have done anyway.
And we just aren't going to know if it's because of Iran's influence or not.
But let me tie this back to the question of whether Soleimani was planning a widespread and more attacks.
So the president is saying two reasons.
There are two reasons for killing him.
One reason is you have to draw the line at the behavior.
So if Iran had killed a contractor, they were attacking an embassy, they'd done some other stuff, if we didn't react...
If we didn't react, it would create a precedent where they'd say, oh, I guess we can keep doing this stuff until we drive them out of the Middle East.
So the president, as Crenshaw said, one of the objectives was simply to make sure that they knew that they'd gone too far and that nothing's going to go further than this.
That's our point of reaction.
That's good. The second reason given...
Is that there were potential future bigger attacks planned, and we stopped some big attacks from happening.
Now, one of the things I've taught you is that if somebody gives one good reason for something, oh, I did it because.
It's probably true.
In other words, well, not probably, but depending who you're talking to and how credible they are.
If you get one reason, That's probably an indication that it's a correct and accurate and honest reason.
Doesn't mean necessarily it's true, just because it's one reason.
But it's an indication of truth.
There's one reason.
Here's a tell for a liar.
Oh, I'm sorry I'm late.
I got a flat tire and traffic was bad.
If somebody gives you two reasons, two different reasons, for a thing, that might be a lie.
The more reasons you add, it's because you think your first reason isn't credible.
It's sort of a tell for a lie to add a second reason.
And this killing of Solomon A has two reasons.
One, we have to draw a line that says, you know, we've taken enough, you know, so it's a defensive thing.
And two, we're stopping a future attack that we knew about.
The second part of that does not pass the sniff test.
Could be true.
Totally could be true.
But it doesn't pass the sniff test because of the two reasons.
One reason convincing.
Two reasons you start to have some questions about whether they're making up reasons because they don't want to tell you the real reason.
Now, I'm going to tie this all together.
If it's true that there were 13 attacks in the past two months, and plus we've seen all these other little attacks, plus the attacks on the contractor, the attacks on the embassy, etc., here's my addition to the conversation.
Did we need to know specifically what those next future attacks would be in order to know that there were future attacks and that this guy would be behind them?
Here's my addition to the conversation.
Our intelligence did not need to know anything specific about future attacks in order to know that they would happen.
Because the past had created a pattern that was unambiguous.
Attacks, attacks, attacks, attacks, attacks, attacks, attacks today.
What are the odds that there weren't going to be future attacks if all the other attacks had been happening and they were regular and they were increasing?
Of course there were going to be future attacks.
Of course there were going to be.
It was obvious that Iran's strategy was to keep poking us and poking us in as many places until it became unbearable to stay with forces in the area.
It's obvious that was the strategy.
Why is it obvious?
Because that would be our strategy.
That would be anybody's strategy.
It's an obvious strategy.
If it had not been Iran's strategy to poke us as much as possible until we feel like we have to leave, well, what would be wrong with Iran?
I mean, are they idiots?
Everything we see about Iran suggests they're smart.
Everything. And it would have been smart to poke us until they, you know, as long as it worked.
And it was working. So those who say that they doubt the intelligence that we knew there were imminent attacks, I say to you, it doesn't matter.
Completely irrelevant.
It is completely irrelevant if we had specific, reliable intel about future attacks.
It doesn't matter to anything. Because we have enough of a history to know there's a 100% chance of future attacks, especially if we don't lay down the line in the sand.
As long as there was no line that says, we're going to stop you if you keep doing this, and there was a history of it increasing over time, and this guy was traveling around talking to people, how much intelligence do you need to know there was going to be more of it?
You don't need any. So the people who are asking about the quality of the intelligence, I would say, irrelevant.
All right. Let's see what else we've got going on here.
I'm going to double down on my prediction.
There was somebody high up in the Iranian government who tweeted out the location and value of all of the Trump properties around the world, which seemed to me that he was suggesting that the Trump properties around the world would be at risk, or maybe he's suggesting that other people put them at risk.
And I thought that was actually a pretty good play from Iran.
Because all they did was, the guy, I forget who it was, but somebody high up in the government, he tweeted a Forbes, I think it was a Forbes article that just listed all the Trump properties and where they are.
Now, there's nothing illegal about tweeting a Forbes article.
It just happened to be kind of threatening in our current situation because it shows all its properties.
Now, I haven't seen that reported in the major news, and I'm glad because the less attention that gets, the better.
I probably shouldn't have mentioned it myself, but I don't think there are any terrorists watching this periscope.
And... At least I hope not.
Any of you terrorists?
I hope not. So...
I thought that was a pretty good persuasion play, but on behalf of all Americans, I think I can say the following.
If anybody ever acted on that particular threat, that would be a really big mistake.
As mistakes go, if Iran were dumb, So I think it's smart to sort of call it out, you know, just to remind us that everybody's vulnerable.
So that's probably smart.
But if anything happens, if that turns into an attack on one of those properties, that's a different level.
That's a big problem, right?
So, I don't think they're going to do it.
Alright, so I'm going to double down on my prediction.
Are you ready? Here's my prediction.
There will not be an unambiguous attack from Iran.
There will be ambiguous situations where we think maybe they were behind something, but we're not quite sure.
So I think that's where it's going.
I don't think you're going to see something like an attack on the mainland, an obvious Iranian proxy who are obviously doing it just because Iran told them to.
I don't think we're going to see that.
Yeah, I think it's going to be like the Kenya situation today, where you look at it and you go, I don't know, al-Shabaab?
They barely, they don't even like Iran.
But they've worked with them.
I don't know. They're Islamic?
Maybe? Maybe?
Timing? So I think you're going to see a lot of gray area, but no direct smoking gun.
While all this was happening, there was another gigantic piece of news that probably you missed.
The President signed, Congress, I guess Congress passed and the President signed, the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2019.
That's named after a rape victim of the past.
And what it does is it funds money so that the states can test 100,000 untested rape kits.
In other words, we have the DNA from 100,000 rapes that nobody has the resources or the ability so far to test.
And the president just funded it.
Think about that. The president, in all likelihood, just solved 100,000 rapes.
That's a pretty big deal.
I mean, that's a super big deal.
And that's just the ones that are backlogged.
Think about all the ones going forward, because it's not just about the ones in the backlog, it's about all the ones that are coming in every day.
And here's the question you have to ask yourself.
Why did that happen before?
Why did we have to wait for Trump to sign it and Congress to pass it?
Well, why did this take so long?
I'm the guy who always says that's not a fair question.
Why did it take so long? But it's a curiosity.
Why did that take so long?
Because it's not like the government ran out of money.
I mean, we're in debt anyway, and a few whatever millions of dollars for this isn't going to change our debt much.
But he just solved 100,000 rapes.
How do you vote for the other one?
If you're a woman, and you're looking at this, and you're saying, yeah, I want to vote for the one who's the best for women.
I don't know. President's building a little portfolio here that women are going to have a harder time ignoring.
So I had an interesting situation yesterday.
I just have to tell you this.
So you can have a laugh.
So I had a bunch of trash after Christmas.
So if you can imagine a pile of trash about the size of a small car.
Now some of it was an old Christmas tree, a fake Christmas tree, not a real one.
Some decorations that were old, some old kinds of Christmas lights that are inefficient.
And then a whole bunch of garbage because, coincidentally, because the holidays I forgot to put my garbage out.
So I had all this garbage.
So we hired a company with an app.
Use an app and hired an independent contractor to come pick it up.
And he did. Guy showed up, picked up all of our trash.
Pretty good news, wouldn't you say?
What a world we live in.
You can just pick up an app and your trash goes away.
Well, that's the good part.
What he did was he filled his truck with my trash.
He drove it to A public street in a neighboring town and he dumped it on the side of the public street.
I know this because a well-meaning bicyclist, I think he was on a bicycle, drove by and saw this gigantic pile of trash on a public street, including trash bags, dug into my trash, found my tax information, A lot of other stuff that I should have...
In any other time, I would have shredded.
This was the first time I was too lazy to shred some stuff.
I was just like, ah, there's too much in it.
I don't feel like spending half a day shredding it.
It'll just go to the dump.
I thought, it's just going to go to the dump.
Yes, it had my address on it, and it had enough personal information that the bicyclist called me home.
And said, is this picture I'm sending you on my phone after he sent me a picture?
He said, is this your trash?
It's got your name all over it.
And Christina's name all over it.
And it was.
So now, I have a gigantic pile of my trash that is a criminal act, right?
I mean, apparently I'm guilty of littering in a massive way in a neighboring town.
So we had to use another app and hire another trash guy.
And here's the fun part.
There was no address. I knew sort of by description that it was on a certain road, but it was a road that didn't have any addresses nearby.
There was a lot of trees and stuff.
I think there was a park there or something.
So we had to figure out how to describe it and send them over.
So $450 later, That's what it cost to send a truck out to pick up my garbage and take it to the dump.
So I think I spent about $600 getting rid of garbage yesterday, which should have been free.
But let me tell you, don't always trust your apps.
All right, I just had to tell you that.
We sent the bill to the other app provider, not expecting to get reimbursed.
All right, that's all I got for now.
Well, I'll tell you the app.
The app was Go Trashy.
Go Trashy was the app that we used that ended up with the garbage by the side of the road.
Now, to be clear, These sorts of apps do not employ, I don't think.
I don't think they employ these people.
These are just independent contractors, kind of like Uber.
Uber can't really know that every person who drives an Uber car is not a criminal or will not commit a crime.
So I don't blame the app maker.
So don't take it out on the app maker.
There are bad humans, and there was just a bad human who got in the mix.
So I have nothing negative to say about the app itself.
There was just one bad apple.
Yeah, so like I'm saying, I would not eschew the app.
I would say that they got one bad person working for them and that's the way it works.
I wouldn't want to see them damaged because they got a bad apple in the mix.
That would not be not appropriate and not fair to them.
Small claims court?
No, because that would really be about the individuals and it's just not worth doing.
Somebody says that Go Trashy is their dating app.
That's pretty funny. Alright, that's enough for now.
▲
Export Selection