Episode 1372 Scott Adams: Pipeline Hackers, Tiger Loose in Houston, China Persuasion Game, More Fun
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
CA budget has a 75 billion surplus?
China's new persuasion front
inexpensive home innovations
Israel, Palestinian tensions, rockets, Iron Dome
Colonial pipeline, massive incompetence?
Melinda Gates "equal partners" quote
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
If you're wondering, Scott, do you only own maybe two t-shirts and you wear them every day?
No, I bought a pile of t-shirts, many of them the same colors.
So if you see me looking exactly the same, well, that's because I'm lazy and I just buy piles of the same thing and then just wear them.
But that's not why you're here.
No, that's not why you're here.
You're here because you would like to enjoy the simultaneous sip with people all over the world.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel, a canteen, a drink, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
Unparalleled, I say. The dopamine hit of the day.
Of the day, I say.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and I know that people all over the world are scurrying, Scurrying like happy little chipmunks to grab their vessels to join me now in the simultaneous sip.
Go! Oh, you did that really well.
I think you nailed it.
Good job, everybody.
Good job. Happy birthday, Mark Wilkinson.
And the rest of you, happy birthday to you.
Don't know if it's your birthday, but I'm sure you have one this year.
Let's talk about all the stuff.
In my favorite category of the Left Eats Itself, Michael Che was getting some trouble for cultural misappropriation or cultural appropriation.
So I guess Michael Che Who happens to be black, which is important to this story, is being accused of writing a skit in which somebody uses, there's a word for it, black cultural lingo or whatever it is.
Now of course it was Elon Musk who was speaking the words, but it was actually written by a black guy who's getting in trouble for writing things Like a black guy would write something.
So when I say like a black guy, I mean he was writing it from knowledge.
So this reminds me of one of my favorite scenes on YouTube with Norm Macdonald.
I've told you before, I got obsessed watching Norm MacDonald clips on YouTube.
You could just line them up and watch one after another.
And there's something much funnier if you watch all of his clips, because the thing that Norm MacDonald does, he tells individual jokes, but there's always a larger joke that's just above the jokes.
And if you don't see a lot of them, You don't get the larger context that the individual...
A lot of them are just dad jokes and stuff.
But if you don't see that the real joke is the layer above the joke, you're missing the whole show.
And one of the clips that makes me laugh every time I see it is he was doing a weekend update when he was doing that for Saturday Night Live, however many years ago that was.
And he does one of his jokes, and it's like super sexist.
And the audience is like, whoa, I can't believe you said that.
It doesn't matter what the joke is.
And then Norm says, well, that joke was written by a woman.
He goes, now you don't know what the hell to do, do you?
It's one of the greatest lines ever.
Now you don't know what the hell to do, do you?
Because as soon as you realize that it wasn't him who wrote the joke, it was a woman who wrote the joke, your head goes, ah, okay, now I don't know what to think.
It was a great moment in comedy.
Great Britain is looking to pass some kind of law to cancel cancel culture.
So it's actually a war on wokeness over there in Great Britain.
The idea is that people denied a platform by universities will be able to sue them, I guess, in court.
So if a university says you're the wrong kind of person because of your politics or whatever, and you're denied from a university, should this become law?
I guess you could do something about it.
Now, I always tell you that the slippery slope doesn't slip forever.
There's usually a counterforce that pops up, and this would be an example.
So the example of Michael Che being almost cancelled for just being himself, basically.
And then that shows you how ridiculous the wokeness thing has gotten.
Then you see the Great Britain literally passing a law against it like it's a crime.
Like wokeness has achieved the level of criminal behavior.
Just think about that.
Wokeness The discrimination against people for what they say or think will have reached criminal proportions if Great Britain passes this law.
Think about that.
Criminal proportions.
Somebody says it is criminal.
I suppose in some ways it is.
Here's a vaccination update.
46% of the U.S. population has received at least one dose.
Now, that's way better than it sounds, because the 46% who got the one dose does not include children, right?
So this is a completely misleading statistic.
What this should say is that what percentage of people over, let's say, 70 got the vaccination?
Because it's way up there, right?
The number of people over 70?
Because that's basically the whole story.
If you get all the over-70s vaccinated, your rate of death goes down 95%.
Can somebody help me on that number?
It'd be in that range, right?
90% at least.
So I think seeing 46% of the total population is a completely misleading number.
And 32% have been fully vaccinated.
Again, that's going to be the older people.
I asked this question on Twitter in a highly unscientific poll.
I said, how do you feel after the first vaccination?
Now, in some cases, you only need one.
But I wondered how people felt, just psychologically, not physically.
But psychologically, do you feel better after getting the first shot?
Or do you feel scared?
Well, I did get my first shot last week, and...
The reason I ask is because I feel better.
Meaning that my mental feeling when I'm just around people has improved.
And I would say substantially, actually.
So if you're trying to decide whether getting the vaccination will make you feel better or feel worse, like more scared or less scared, The people who took it said that about a quarter of them, I'm going to round off here quite a bit, but about a quarter of them said they're more afraid after getting the vaccination.
I don't know. Do you think you'd be one of those people?
More afraid after you got a vaccination?
About a quarter of the people are more relieved.
I'm closer to 30%.
I'm in that category. I'm relieved.
And about half the people say no different, which you'd expect.
So if you're wondering, should I get the vaccination, I would look at this.
A quarter of the people feel better.
I think you know which category you'd be in.
Now, this brings us to an important risk management question.
Now, let's see if you can get this one right.
How do you incorporate the risk of something completely unknown, such as long-term vaccination side effects?
If you don't want to get the vaccination, it's because you're afraid of the long-term effects.
I don't think that anybody looks at the short-term risk and thinks that that's greater than the risk of the virus itself.
Because you all know that, right?
If you're not dying in the first ten minutes or first two weeks, if it doesn't get you in the first two weeks, and even that's a safer risk than not getting the vaccination, according to what we know.
If it doesn't get you right away, what are the odds it's going to get you in the long term?
And how do you calculate the risk-reward?
Well, I just interacted with somebody on Twitter who felt that the unknown...
was big enough to not get the vaccination.
How do you know how big the unknown is?
I'm going to be looking at your answers as they go by.
Because this is a tough one.
If you talk to the best risk management person in the world, or several of them, would they even approach this the same way?
And I actually don't know the answer to that.
But I'll tell you how I approach it.
Okay? Again, I think people can approach this differently.
I'll just give you my risk management approach.
And remember, none of this is to suggest that you should do or not do anything.
So this is not about you.
This is about you learning some risk management technique.
What you do with it is all you.
There's no persuasion about vaccinations happening here.
If it feels like it, turn that off.
You get to make your own decision, no exceptions.
All right? Here's how I do it.
There is a category of unknowns that are completely unknown, and then there's a category of unknowns that fit into, let's say, a category, another category, which you can say something about the category But you can't know anything about the things in it specifically.
Let me be more clear than that, because that wasn't very good.
We do know from experts about the general risk of vaccinations, generally speaking, in the long run.
Because there have been lots of different vaccinations and lots of experts.
What the experts say is that the long-term risk is trivial.
Now, could they be wrong?
And if they were wrong, could you die?
Yeah. Yeah.
They could be wrong, and you could die or get a terrible health problem.
But what are the odds of that?
Let me tell you what else could happen.
In Houston, there's a tiger that's running free.
Literally, a guy who had his own pet tiger got arrested, and the tiger is out wandering the streets.
Now, that tiger could come upon somebody who's on their way to get a vaccination, and the tiger could kill somebody who was going to get a vaccination because they left the house to do it, whereas if they had never left the house, the tiger could never even find them and kill them.
So, if you're in Houston and you're trying to decide whether to get a vaccination today, should you include in your risk management The odds of the tiger getting you because you left the house.
And the comments tell me, should you consider it?
Because if the tiger kills you, you're dead.
I mean, you're just dead.
That's the ultimate risk.
So should you include the tiger risk when you decide to get your vaccinations?
Why not? I'm seeing people say no.
It's a real risk.
If you're in Houston, you don't know where the tiger is.
It's unknown. It's an unknown risk that could kill you.
And it's real.
It's not imaginary.
It's a real tiger.
I didn't make that up, by the way.
It's a real tiger. Today there's an actual tiger loose in Houston.
It's real. So I'm looking at your answers.
It's a tough one, isn't it?
Because the risk of getting killed by that tiger, if you go outdoors in Houston today...
It's probably higher than the risk of having a side effect from the vaccination.
But we don't know.
Don't know. Right?
So here's my general advice on risk management.
If a risk is so unknown, but also experts say it's not the kind that you necessarily need to worry about, don't include it in your calculation.
So I would say don't include the tiger.
Don't include the risk of driving, because you can die in your car, right?
So that's a risk if you've got to get the vaccination.
Don't include the risk of, let's say, if you went to a medical facility, often you could get an infection just by being in a hospital.
I wouldn't count it, because it's so small.
What are the odds that you would be hit by the rocket debris from a Chinese rocket that's coming back into Earth's atmosphere?
I wouldn't count it.
It's a real risk. There is actual debris.
There are actual meteors that fall to Earth and could kill you.
But I wouldn't count it.
Because all of the stuff that's so remote, I just round it to zero.
So here's my advice.
If the experts tell you that a type of risk is in the category of things that the experts say, It's so small you could ignore it for this particular decision.
Probably ignore it.
Just like you would ignore the tiger, just like you ignore the car ride risks, just like you ignore space debris falling on your head.
Anything could happen, but they're so small that you should ignore them.
Somebody says you're underestimating the probability.
Keep in mind that the probability cannot be estimated.
What are your personal odds of being killed by the tiger in Houston?
Not the same as anybody else's.
Even if you could estimate the odds of everybody, you know, all people being killed by the tiger, you can't estimate your odds because that tiger could be sitting on your doorstep.
You might be the only one who's close to the tiger while it's hungry, right?
So any general risk doesn't apply to you.
Your risk is you.
So it's a complete unknown, but I would say if the experts were warning you that it was a problem, then I would take it seriously.
If the experts say it's in the class of things you don't need to worry about after the first two weeks, because that's when side effects tend to represent themselves, I would say all of those risks I would discount to zero.
But if you can find a risk management expert...
Who disagrees with me, or you could find a better way to calculate the risks, then I would say do it.
But that's where I am on those things that can't be calculated.
Did I see a headline that said that the California budget had a surplus of $75 billion?
I feel like I hallucinated that.
Because I saw that headline and then I didn't see any news reports on it.
Is that real? California budget had a $75 billion extra?
Did that really happen? Now, is that just because they got federal money?
Because the other thing that's true is apparently we're going to run out of electricity, like we always do.
And also, the forests are going to catch on fire again because we haven't cleaned out the underbrush.
And apparently it's the driest and worst it's ever been.
So any moment now, the whole state's going to go up in smoke.
Just like last year. Last year you couldn't even go outdoors for months.
Couldn't go outdoors.
You couldn't go outdoors for months in California last year.
And this year is supposed to be worse.
And he's thinking about using this for, I don't know, extra stimulus checks or something.
And I'm thinking to myself, I feel like we should throw a few billion at hiring all the unemployed people to go clear the underbrush.
Because are you telling me...
Are you telling me that we don't need to do it, or that we can't find bodies?
We have the money.
You have hordes of unemployed people, allegedly, and you have all this money, and you have exactly the task that is most important for them to do, clearing the underbrush.
I feel like this is quite an opportunity here, but I guess he's just going to issue checks, because that would be politically expedient.
Let's see. The AP is reporting that China has opened up a new front for persuasion.
I guess they got lots of Twitter fake accounts.
Twitter is fighting hard to identify and get rid of them, but, you know, they just sign up more.
So there are tens of thousands of these fake accounts and hundreds of thousands of tweets and retweets and stuff.
And I guess it was inevitable.
I mean, why would China not do this?
There's no reason in the world for them to not do this.
They should do this. It's just an obvious thing to do.
So we should expect more of that.
So in my favorite category of news, there's a whole bunch of stuff happening in the how to build a cheap house category.
Now when I say cheap, I don't mean crappy.
I mean cheap as in it did not cost you many dollars, but you got an awesome house.
If you've ever looked at how homes are built, you would know that the inefficiency in the system from beginning to end is extraordinary.
Like the entire approval, housing codes, all the way through the final construction, everything about that industry...
It's completely inefficient and wrong.
I mean, you're using materials that have been shipped from the other side of the earth.
Everything's, you know, cut to specific models.
There's no such thing as engineering a, you know, a well-designed home that everybody can live in.
I mean, the whole thing's a complete mess because of the dynamics of the marketplace and what people can sell and what the buyers know, etc.
A simple example, Is that it would be easy for a builder to build a closet exactly where you need it.
But the buyer of the house doesn't know that the closet isn't there because they don't really notice.
They look at the house and it's beautiful and they say, oh, it's in the right location.
Schools are good. They buy it.
So houses are not designed for the way you live.
They're designed that when you stand in it and look around, you go, whoa, this looks cool.
I want to live here. That's it.
So there's not even any attempt to make a well-designed home.
Think about that. That's a big statement, isn't it?
Every one of us lives in, you know, not every one of us, unfortunately, most of us live in some kind of a home, be it an apartment or a house.
Nobody, as far as I know, nobody in that part of the industry is putting any attention...
Into designing a home the way you'd want to live in it.
Do you believe that?
If you don't believe it, just tour any home.
And stand there and say, does this work for the way anybody lives?
Not even close.
Just ask yourself what you do all day, and then look at the home, and say if it matches.
It won't even be close.
Here's a small example.
How many of you own pets?
Most of you, right? Probably at least two-thirds of you own a pet.
Was your home designed with a pet door?
No. Was your home designed with a place that's obvious where the dog's food would be or the cat's cat box?
No. Two-thirds of people have pets.
Zero homes are designed with a pet in mind.
Right? Now, I've seen a few.
I've seen a model home with a dog shower in it.
But they're not even trying to design these things the way a modern person lives.
In my house, I designed this house 12 years ago, and it's got a TV in almost every room.
TV in almost every room.
I think I have 14 televisions.
How many televisions do all of us who live here watch in any given day?
None. None.
People don't watch television anymore.
We watch it on our devices.
So if I'm going to watch something in the house, I've got headphones in, and I'm watching it on my phone or my iPad.
It used to be that I wanted the big screen because, you know, CGI and action movies.
But since action movies all look alike...
I usually fast-forward during the action scenes.
Am I the only one who does that?
When I watch an action movie, like a superhero movie, and it gets to the fight scene, I just fast-forward through the fight scene?
Because it's just this.
I don't need to watch that.
Things are moving. And hero gets hit and then hits back.
There's nothing there.
The other thing that I fast-forward through is any kind of a love scene.
In the beginning of a movie where they're trying to show that these two actors are really two people very much in love and they do the sickeningly sweet thing so that you can understand they're really in love because one of them is going to die pretty soon.
Fast forward. Okay, we've got ten minutes of them acting sickeningly sweet to each other that I don't want to see all for the purpose of telling me that these two people really like each other And the reason for that is so that when one of them dies, I, as the viewer, will feel bad.
Why am I going to watch that?
Fast forward, I got it.
Next scene, somebody's tied to a chair and they're going to be tortured.
I got it. They're tough.
They can get through it. Fast forward.
Torture is over. Car chase scene.
There's going to be a car that's going really fast and almost have an accident.
Fast forward, car chase scene.
Why would you need a big screen to watch anything?
There's no reason for a big screen.
The Hollywood industry...
I don't know how to deal with that comment about tobacco yet, but I saw it.
So anyway, homes are not designed for the way we live, and if they were, we could do them cheaply.
There are three examples that are new.
One of them is a 3D-printed dirt home in Italy.
So in 200 hours, they can dig up the dirt.
And here's the important part.
They use the dirt that's already there.
So they dig it up, they sift it, they mix it with corn husks, turn it into a 3D printer, and 200 hours later, they build really cool-looking houses.
You know, they look like pods and stuff.
They're really cool-looking. But while they do solve the problem...
of material shipping because they're using materials from the dirt that's there.
What it doesn't do is give you a way to modify it later.
Have you ever lived in a house that you didn't need to modify a lot?
In the comments, how many of you live in a house where you're not continuously running another cable, adding an outlet, changing a wall, So I don't think these 3D homes are the future, or at least not the whole future, because I think you need homes that can be customized as you go.
If you can't change the wiring and stuff, where do you put the wiring in a 3D printed home?
How would you open up a wall?
Could you do it? I don't know.
So here's another model.
There's a tiny home built with some kind of a cheap panel.
Darn it. I wish I'd written that down.
And the third kind is a company in...
Is it Denmark or someplace?
Called Gablok.
G-A-B-L-O-K. And they literally make Lego-like blocks.
So insulated wooden blocks that you can pick up and just put on a wall by yourself.
Almost there.
I do think that you need to get to the point where people can build their own home literally just by putting blocks together to form the home.
Because then you can take it apart and reconfigure things, rebuild a home, etc.
But there's one more thing that needs to be done to make this work.
We need to have a set of common designs for best rooms.
Best room design.
There definitely is three best bedroom designs.
Don't you think? I mean, there's not that much variation in what a bedroom needs to be.
Bedstand, bed, someplace to put your clothes, a window to look out, right?
So you can design perfectly designed areas so that nothing needs to be cut.
So you want your floor plan and your walls to be exactly, you know, one foot units.
So you don't have to cut something in half to make it.
Nothing needs to be cut. So we're getting there.
Cheap housing is the future.
Israel and Gaza are at it.
I guess the Gaza militants are launching rockets into Israel.
And the Iron Dome is doing a good job, they say.
Do you believe that? Do you believe the Iron Dome is working?
Now, the Iron Dome is Israel's rocket defense system.
System that shoots rockets up to shoot down the incoming rockets.
And there's a video of it working.
I do remember that however many years ago it was, there was some video of the same thing where it was showing that Israel was just knocking down all these rockets.
But later we found out it was all BS. Fake news.
And that the number of rockets that it actually hit wasn't all of them.
So it wasn't as good.
Maybe it's better now.
Maybe they have more defense.
But we're seeing again the Iron Dome at work.
And I don't know that it's as effective as they would like us to believe, but it's definitely better than not having one.
And the question has to be asked, would any of this be happening if Trump were still in office?
Do we believe that the current increase in tensions over there Or because it was just going to happen anyway?
You know, is it just events on the ground?
Or is it opportunistic stuff because Biden isn't president?
Is it opportunistic?
What do you think? Yeah, I feel as if Trump would have been somewhat of a control on this, but it's hard to know.
Let's talk about that Matt Gaetz story that continues to be nothing.
Now, I'm not going to say that it could never turn into nothing, or that it could never turn into something.
But every day that goes by, it's more interesting that we don't have an accuser, or at least one that has a name.
So this entire thing about Matt Gaetz, CNN keeps trying to make a story about it, But they don't have anything that's like evidence or a witness or a victim.
So it's a crime story with no evidence, no victim that's been named, but a lot of looking for it.
And so the latest is that there are two people who might turn, what's it called, state's evidence or whatever, would become informants.
One of them is the one we already knew, this Joel Greenberg guy.
So that part is not news, because we've known that for a while.
But CNN needs to make this news, so they're going to throw in that fact that we already knew.
And then they're throwing in the new fact, which might not be a fact, which is that allegedly, maybe, sort of, there's some ex-girlfriend of Matt Gaetz who might want to talk to authorities.
The ex-girlfriend is not making any accusations.
She's not the victim.
She's not the subject of the potentially 17-year-old girl.
She's just the girlfriend who might know something.
So keep in mind, Matt Gaetz, a sitting congressperson, has been accused of really serious crimes, and now weeks later, the best story they can come up with is they might want to talk to some people who might know some things that they don't know.
Are you kidding me?
And we're okay with this?
Like we're watching this happen right in front of us?
If you can't come up with a better story of something he did, such as an actual crime, an actual allegation with specifics, a person involved, a victim, if you don't have any of that, I don't know that it's a story yet.
Again, It's not my job to apologize for anybody or defend anybody.
Because I think you and I can say with certainty that we don't know what Matt Gaetz did or did not do, right?
So we don't know. But I'm just going to go out and say it, that if Matt Gaetz is guilty of everything he's accused of, none of it looks important to me.
Is anybody on the same page with that?
If he's guilty of everything accused of, and again, there's no evidence that the public is aware of.
Just no evidence that we're aware of.
If he's guilty of every bit of that, none of it's important.
I mean, none of it even rises to the level of who cares.
And I know that I'm not supposed to say that, right?
Shouldn't I get cancelled for saying that?
I'm supposed to be fretting about the poor victim and everything, but there weren't any.
This story doesn't even have a victim.
Even if everything that's alleged happened, no victim.
Except Matt Gaetz.
Matt Gaetz looks like a victim here, but no other one.
Otherwise, it's people doing what they wanted to do, and maybe one person lied about their age, And wasn't a victim.
If it's true that a 17-year-old lied about her age, and that's maybe the worst thing that happened, who's the victim?
The 17-year-old?
Apparently not. Matt Gaetz?
Looks like it. Looks like he's the victim.
If somebody lies about their age, it's the guy who's the victim, because he wasn't doing the lying, right?
So, the more this story emerges, the more it looks like Matt Gaetz is the victim of the story, in a practical sense.
In a legal sense, of course, there are laws about these things, which you could argue maybe there shouldn't be, but they do exist.
So, let's talk about that pipeline hack.
Are you as confused as I am about why they can't just erase all their software and use the backup software and go back in action?
What kind of a company that runs a major infrastructure asset can't back up their software?
There's something about this story I don't understand, right?
Now, somebody said, Scott, Scott, Scott, you've been out of the business world too long.
Big companies don't back up all their software.
To which I say, oh, I get that.
I wouldn't be surprised if big companies didn't back up all of their software.
But if you're a pipeline, I do sort of expect you to have all your software backed up.
If you're a nuclear energy plant, I kind of expect, maybe that's just me, but I would kind of expect you to have a little bit of a backup plan for your data.
So there's something about the story that doesn't make sense.
Either there's massive incompetence at the company for having something without a backup, or maybe there's some reason it's not backed up that I'm not aware of.
So that's a big question mark.
But here are my other comments on this.
Have I ever told you, I tell you this every day, Literally every day, I tell you that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats do not factor in human motivation when they make decisions.
I know it's weird, whereas the Republicans start with human motivation and then build the system around it, and then it always works.
But if you act like human motivation isn't even a variable, nothing's going to work.
This is another perfect example.
Imagine a President Trump being president right now when the pipeline got hacked.
Here's what a good negotiator would say.
Release the encrypted stuff right now.
We're already tracking you down, and we will kill you.
We will kill you where you stand really soon.
And you don't know whether we know where you are or not, so you're going to have to guess.
But if you haven't released this in 24 hours, you might be dead.
Now, what would be the human motivation of hackers who could not be entirely sure if the military of the United States already has a laser sight on their roof?
Because they don't know, right?
The hackers think they have a way to be completely safe or they wouldn't do it.
But they don't know.
And if Trump were president, do you think he would let them know that we don't know where they are?
Because we're kind of doing that.
By the fact that we're dealing with it the way we're doing it, I don't feel like the hackers feel like they're in immediate danger.
I think Trump would tell them they might be dead in 24 hours.
That's what I would do. Because human motivation is they're not going to do anything differently unless they're afraid.
So why the hell would you negotiate with these hackers without putting them at the threat of immediate death?
That's how you negotiate, right?
You don't negotiate on a weakness.
You tell them, look, here's the deal, hackers, because apparently we're in communication with them, or somebody is.
There must be some kind of communication, right?
You tell them, here's the deal.
How about you just release the data, we give you nothing, and you don't have to guess whether you'll be dead by the end of today.
I don't know. That might make them a little more flexible.
Or at least lower the price.
But if we're not negotiating from a point of them fearing their death that day, like literally that day, you might be dead by the end of today, we're not doing it right.
And I know that Trump would have gotten that right.
Because he goes for the threat first.
All right. Somebody asked on Twitter, how is it possible that a pipeline can get hacked?
You would think it would have the highest level of cybersecurity, and it still got hacked.
But why is it that that could get hacked, but our election system is totally safe?
Does that feel right?
That even something as important as a pipeline can get hacked, but the election can't?
Now, that comment sounds clever until I point out that the hackers who hacked the pipeline got caught, meaning that they weren't trying to do anything secret.
You can't really blackmail unless you tell people you did it.
So, if the election system had been hacked...
The proper comparison would be, would we notice?
So the pipeline was not hacked without notice.
It was hacked with notice.
So you can't really compare that to something that presumably would have been hacked in a secret way if anybody could have figured out a way to do it.
But I think the general concept is correct, which is that anything can get hacked.
So let me say this as clearly as I can.
If you say you know that the election software was hacked, you don't know that.
You don't know that.
There's no evidence of that.
Actually, there is a story in some non-major media.
There is some story about the Arizona audit that I'm not going to repeat because it is not yet from what I would call a credible source.
But Anyway, the point is anything can get hacked.
If you think that the election system was hacked, there's no evidence of that.
But if you think it definitely wasn't hacked, you're fucking stupid.
Sorry, I had to drop the F-bomb on you there.
Because sometimes stupid doesn't tell the story.
Sometimes you're effing stupid.
If you know the system was hacked, show us the information.
I haven't seen any. But if you know it wasn't, you're just a fucking idiot.
There's nothing else you can say about that.
If you're positive it wasn't hacked, that's just fucking idiot.
Because you can't be positive of that.
You could be right, by the way.
If you say it wasn't hacked, you could be right.
Because how would I know?
The accusation would be it was hacked...
Without the public knowing.
That's the very thing.
But if you're positive because CNN told you that it wasn't, and then you're like, oh, CNN says it wasn't hacked, so I guess it's all good.
If you're positive it wasn't hacked, you're fucking stupid.
You can't know that. It's unknowable.
All right. I just have to dump on Melinda Gates a little bit more.
There's a quote that's just bugging the hell out of me.
When she took her job at the Gates Foundation, she had this quote.
She said, Bill and I are equal partners, Melinda told the Associated Press.
Men and women should be equal at work.
God, I hate her.
I just hate Melinda Gates, I have to say.
This quote just makes me hate her guts.
I really do. I just freaking hate her.
Because... While I agree with the sentiment, of course, men and women should be equal at work in the sense of equal opportunity.
Men and women should be equal at work in the sense of equal safety, equal pay.
We all agree with that, right?
But Melinda is not Bill Gates.
Bill Gates built Microsoft and And became the richest guy in the world, at least for a while.
Melinda had sex with Bill Gates.
Now, I'm not going to say that's easy either.
But it's not the same.
You're not equal.
Let me say this as clear as I can.
Bill Gates, one of the smartest people on earth who did one of the most amazing commercial successes of all time.
That's who Bill Gates is.
Melinda, you are somebody who sucked his dick.
You're not equal. You're not equal.
It has nothing to do with gender.
If Bill Gates had been gay and married a man, he would still be marrying a man who only sucked his dick.
That man did not start Microsoft.
That man did not start the Gates Foundation.
That man, hypothetically, Didn't do anything except suck his dick.
You're not equal.
You're not equal.
Stop saying it.
It's an insult to men.
This is just an insult.
So, Melinda, I'm glad Bill Gates is divorcing your ass.
Although, maybe Melinda is the one who started it.
I don't know. All right.
That... Was Scott ever on Epstein's island?
No, I wasn't.
But if you'd like to start any good rumors, I'm always up for a good rumor.
Now, if I haven't told you this before, if you ever hear any great sex rumors about me, I doubt you will.
But if you ever did, I would encourage you to believe all of them except anything that's illegal.
So if you hear any rumors about me that I did anything illegal, Didn't happen.
But if you hear any rumor that's interesting, that's like really interesting, and it's like sex is involved, I would encourage you to believe it.
It won't be true.
It's very unlikely it'll be true.
But I would encourage you to believe it.
Because it makes me more interesting.
Yeah, gerbil. If you hear anything about a gerbil, totally.
I totally stuck that gerbil in there.
Alright, so that is all I have for you today.
I think that you are noticing that I don't know if it's just because we don't have a President Trump, but the news has really started to become sort of a golden age kind of a news situation, which is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of terrible stuff happening, and the things that were already terrible seem to be getting better at a pretty good rate.
This is a weird time.
You know, anything could happen in the next few weeks, but we're definitely entering the best time in human history.
And if you're not seeing it, you're missing a great show.
Because I don't think any humans have ever been in a better situation than we're about to be in.
We're not quite there. We've got a lot of work to do.
But we're right on the cusp of a golden age that will be phenomenal.
Alright, that's all for now, and I'll talk to you.
