Episode 1425 Scott Adams: Coffee and Headlines to Start Your Day Right
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Who demonetized Bret Weinstein?
Agreement to NOT prosecute Cosby & Ghislaine?
Transgenders, Miss USA and athletes
AOC and Sha'Carri Richardson
The Kamala Harris cackle
Claims of VP office dysfunction
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
For the best part of the day, it's called the simultaneous sip.
It's part of Coffee with Scott Adams, which I think you know is the best part of the day, every single time.
Every single time you say?
Is there even one time when it's not the best part of the day?
Well, maybe if you have the birth of a child.
Maybe if it's your wedding day.
Sure. But otherwise, it's the best part of your day every single time.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
I think you know that. It's happening right now.
Go. Ah.
Well, YouTubers who are watching this, tell me if I've solved that problem of an annoying click on my audio.
I think I have, because I've got a blanket down now so it's...
Blocking my cables from hitting the table.
So it's better on Periscope, you say.
Well, it's too bad Periscope doesn't exist.
But I am simultaneously streaming this now on the Locals platform in beta.
Not everybody can do this yet.
I'm just testing the beta version.
Somebody's sending me something I need to check out later.
All right. So, have you heard the story about the woman who is a guard in a men's prison?
Her name is Gonzales.
And she was accused of cutting a hole in her uniform to, as they say, facilitate her intimate encounters with an inmate.
That's right. There was an attractive young female guard in a male prison And she'd figured out how to cut a hole in her uniform to facilitate intimate encounters with the inmate.
Yes, she's attractive.
That's an important part of the story.
It's actually not that important to the story, but I think it adds a little.
I think you'd agree.
Now, my reaction to this...
is very much like my reaction to when I hear that a serial killer has built an impressive underground lair.
I say to myself, well, that's a horrible crime, and I feel bad for the victims, but that's one industrious serial killer, and you have to give him some props for working hard at his craft and putting passion into it.
Now, this prison guard, again, I have to say, While it's a crime, and we cannot condone such activity, we must compliment her for her creativity.
Now, wouldn't you like to see a little bit more detail on this story?
Because I would.
I'd like to know, what is the nature of the hole she put in her uniform to, quote, facilitate her intimate encounters?
Because I'm no fashion expert.
But if you had a prison guard uniform, and let's say there was a hole, let's say about this size.
We don't know, but, you know, let's say it's a hole about this size.
And let's say this hole was in her, let's say, lower region of her body.
Is that the sort of thing nobody would notice?
I'd like you to do a test.
Test at home. Take your favorite pants and cut a hole Through the pant part and also any undergarments.
So you've got a full access there for facilitating your intimate encounters with your spouse.
And try wearing your pants with the hole cut out in the lower region.
Try wearing that all day.
And see if anybody notices.
Because the first question I have is, was there some kind of a Velcro...
Was it a fastener over the hole so that she could just sort of quickly open it up?
Or was it just always open?
Because you got the advantage of the airflow is better, but also quick access for your intimate encounters.
I just have lots of questions.
The other question I have is, how much game did this inmate have?
I tend to put myself in every story because we're all narcissists at some level.
So I always imagine myself in the story in order to consume it.
And I put myself in the story and I say to myself, if I were not famous and rich, do I think I could attract a hot female guard in a jail full of men Would I be the one who got her to cut a hole in her uniform for facilitating my intimate encounters?
Because I feel I couldn't pull that off.
I mean, I have a pretty good opinion of myself, but I look at all this and I say to myself, if I were literally in jail for a horrible crime and I'm behind bars, Could I, with all of this, talk an attractive female guard into cutting a hole in her uniform to facilitate my intimate encounters?
And as much as I have a pretty high opinion of my persuasive abilities, I don't think I could pull that off.
Could you? Do you think any of you could pull that off?
The important part of the story is, show us a picture of the inmate.
Who the hell is this inmate?
Who got this to happen?
Because I'm thinking, this is some impressive work by the inmate.
All right. All right.
Matt Taibbi has an interesting article over on Substack.
And by the way, you should follow Matt Taibbi in all things, because he's An insanely good writer.
He was talking about the Dark Horse podcast.
You've heard of the story. Brett Weinstein has had some guests who have said some things that are counter to the official story on coronavirus medical treatment.
One of the stories about ivermectin, which is not an improved treatment, but there are some doctors who think maybe it should be.
And I think at least one episode about some risks of vaccines, which again goes counter to the official policy, shall we say.
And so he's been demonetized.
And so this story continues about him being demonetized for this.
And as Matt Taibbi points out, there's an interesting wrinkle here.
Because as specifically about Weinstein's demonetization, so YouTube was asked if they get their guidance for who to demonetize, just specifically in the medical information report, where do they get their guidance?
So how does YouTube decide whether to demonetize somebody?
And apparently the answer is...
They do talk to authorities, government authorities, and they say they consult other authorities and added that when we develop our policies, we consult outside experts and YouTube creators.
In the case of COVID-19 misinformation policies, it would be guidance from local and global health authorities.
So this is what YouTube says.
So YouTube says they get their guidance from local and global health authorities.
Now those authorities would be government, would they not?
The authorities would be the CDC, etc.
And certainly we don't want to be censored in the United States because there's some other government who would like us to be censored.
Wouldn't you agree? That if the only people who wanted our creators to be demonetized on a particular topic, if the only ones who wanted that were outside of the United States, but nobody in the United States cared, we probably wouldn't pay attention to it, right? If the speech were okay in the United States, YouTube would probably allow it, I imagine.
So it's not really the otherworldly governments that matter, but rather it's our own local authorities.
One assumes they're the ones that matter in this case.
So here's the gray area.
So if the government tried to censor a citizen, is that okay?
Of course not.
The Constitution says that the government should not be censoring the citizens.
Now, what if a private individual tries to censor you?
Is that okay? And the answer is, yeah.
Yes, it is. So a private person can censor you, but the government can't.
But what happens if the private company, in this case YouTube, what happens if they consult with the government And they've agreed to take the government's advice.
Now it gets a little dicey, doesn't it?
So if the government is the one who advises YouTube, and then YouTube simply follows their guidance, and here's the key.
Every time. Every time.
If YouTube follows the medical guidance of the United States government entities, let's say the CDC in this case, and they do it every time, They never vary from that.
And why would they, really? How could they?
Could you imagine that YouTube would say, well, the CDC said this, but we've decided we're going to go a different direction?
No. I think it's safe to assume that if YouTube has this policy at all, which is to listen to the government on these medical questions, that they're going to use their advice.
They're not going to ignore it.
So what do you call it?
When the government's viewpoint can effectively be the thing that shuts down a citizen.
Does it matter that YouTube technically has a choice of whether they follow that guidance or not?
Or do they have a choice?
What would happen to YouTube if they started promoting wildly bad medical advice?
Don't you think the government would shut them down?
I mean, they would do something to them.
Maybe not shut them down.
But if YouTube can't disobey the government, it's the government that's censoring Brett Weinstein, isn't it?
Would you buy that argument?
That if YouTube, technically, they have the right to ignore the government, I guess, do they?
I suppose they do, right?
Freedom of speech. So they could do it, but in the real world, they can't.
I mean, not really they can.
So what happens?
So what do you do?
I'll tell you where I come down on this.
If I were the Supreme Court, I would say this is government censorship.
Because the government's hand on this is so heavy that it's effectively government censorship.
But here's the other part that's hard.
The government isn't always wrong, all right?
The government isn't always wrong.
So it could be that in this very specific case of a pandemic that the government is just trying to save lives.
And maybe it would.
Maybe a reasonable person would look at this and say, yeah, we get all the arguments about free speech.
Nobody disagrees that you've got to maintain free speech and that this is definitely infringing it.
But what if it also saved millions of lives?
What do you do when free speech might kill millions of people in an honest opinion?
Because let's say you thought that free speech would cause people to get fewer vaccinations and you legitimately believe that would cost lives.
What do you do? Do you say freedom of speech is so important we're going to let a million people die?
Would you make that decision?
Let's see in the comments.
Now, I know you don't think a million people will die, so I understand that the hypothetical is stretched too far.
But I want to see in your comments how many of you would let a million people die to protect freedom of speech on one topic.
So it's one temporary topic, because even speech about the pandemic will be fine after the pandemic's over.
So it's temporary, it's on one topic, and it's for the benefit of the country.
Save a million people.
And I'm looking at your comments, and most of you would let a million people die for freedom of speech.
I choose death, people say.
You know, I'm not going to criticize that opinion.
I don't know where I would come down on this, because it's hypothetical, so I don't have to decide.
But I could respect your opinion on that.
I could respect that you would lose a million people to maintain freedom of speech as an absolute.
I could see that. I'm not sure I would come down in the same place, but I could see it.
I think where I would decide is whether it was creating a permanent situation.
So if we thought that making an exception in this one specific case was likely to cause more exceptions, then that would be a problem.
So I think that's where I'd come down on it.
Slippery slope, right. If you think it's a slippery slope, you have to treat it that way.
Now, there's an interesting sub-story here on this situation.
So Claire Lehmann, I hope I'm pronouncing that right, founder of Quillette and well-known on Twitter, has a big Twitter account.
She and Brett Weinstein are having a little Twitter battle back and forth.
She points out that in one of her exchanges with Brett on Twitter, she says, Claire says, don't patronize me.
Your rhetoric is fueling vaccine hesitancy, and you know it.
You need to fix what you are creating.
And I'm not so sure.
Does he? Because let's say that the claim is correct.
Let's say that Brett's content, which Claire calls rhetoric, so right away she's using a loaded word.
I would say that he's creating content that is not in the mainstream, if you want to take all the emotion out of it.
But if you want to put some opinion into your statement, you say it's rhetoric.
His rhetoric. Because that just makes it look like it's bullshit, right?
So your rhetoric is fueling vaccine hesitancy.
Let's say that's true.
Don't call it rhetoric. Let's say content.
Let's say Brett's content is fueling vaccine hesitancy.
Is that a reason not to do it?
Is that a good enough reason not to do it?
Because I don't know that it is.
I think I'm hearing Christina practicing the piano if you hear that.
So anyway, I'm just watching this because I think it's kind of fascinating, the free speech element to this.
All right, here's another unexpected, unintended consequences of something.
So as you know, Bill Cosby was freed because there had been allegedly a prior agreement, must have been an oral agreement, With a prosecutor that he wouldn't be prosecuted for the specific crime he was, and so he got out of jail.
And now, not only did Harvey Weinstein's lawyer say, hey, we're next.
I kind of doubt Harvey Weinstein is next, but Ghislaine Maxwell, whose name we cannot pronounce, but before I go on...
Let me thank the simulation and the authors of the simulation for making Ghislaine's Maxwell, Maxwell's name, have something that looks like Jizz, Jizzlane, and Max in the name.
Because if you were going to name a, let's say, a fictional character, Who did all of the things that Jis Lane, Max Well, is accused of doing, I would want her name to have Jis in it and Max.
Maximum Jis. I feel like the simulation is just giving this to us.
So let's take it. But anyway, her appellate lawyer...
Is arguing that she too was subject to an agreement not to prosecute.
And apparently there was, and I think, correct me if I'm wrong, I think even Alan Dershowitz either negotiated this or was even covered by it, or both.
There was some kind of agreement that when Epstein was prosecuted, whatever that deal was back in 2010 or something, that there was some deal not to prosecute co-conspirators.
Someone tell Scott about Wayne Sexton.
Don't know about Wayne Sexton.
So anyway, but the point is, we don't know the details of this claim, but I think she might actually have a claim.
She might actually have a get out of jail card here.
Because if it's true that she was covered under this agreement, she walks, right?
So it's entirely possible that Ghislaine will get out of jail just like Cosby.
So I don't know how likely that is, but I would say it's not impossible, which is scary as hell.
Well, here's a case of the slippery slope taking care of itself, or a self-correcting problem.
Did you see that a transgender woman has earned the title of Miss Nevada?
So I guess it's the Miss USA contest.
And a Filipino-American, Catalina Enriquez, was crowned the winner for Nevada.
So we have a transgender woman who's Miss Nevada now.
And she bested 21 other candidates to win.
There are two ways to look at this.
One way to look at this, and probably many of you are looking at it this way.
Yeah, Miss America and Miss USA are two different competitions.
I think that's correct. Somebody's telling me here.
So here's the thing.
On one hand, you could say to yourself that the drama with transgender athletes is ruining sports.
Some people say that, right?
Or ruining women's sports.
That's what the critics would say.
And now I imagine that there will be critics who say that a transgender-winning Miss Nevada is ruining the Miss USA pageant.
Would you say that?
They had a perfectly good pageant, and now it's getting ruined, ruined, I say, by this transgender competitor.
I've got a different opinion.
I feel that what happened was that the transgender athletes have shown us what's wrong with sports and what's wrong with pageants.
I don't think the transgenders are what's broken here.
I think the transgender athletes and the transgender Miss USA contestants are just people, but they're in a system that had some flaws.
One of the flaws is, why the hell is there a Miss USA contest in 2021?
Isn't everything about that just feels wrong in 2021?
Really? We're going to make a bunch of women walk around in bathing suits and judge them and their minor talents and it's all about how you look?
There's nothing wrong with this transgender competitor.
The competitor's fine.
It's the competition that's just ridiculous.
So if the person who's fine breaks a competition, don't necessarily blame the competitor.
Maybe the competition didn't make any sense in 2021.
Likewise, I think sports should be among people who are similarly skilled, regardless of gender.
So in my opinion, it's the sports that are broken, not the athlete.
Because everybody should have access to sports, one way or the other.
So I'm not going to make a bigger argument there, except to say there are two ways to look at it.
One is that the transgenders are ruining everything.
And the other is, people are people.
Some are transgender.
How about If you can't create a system that handles people, maybe the system needs some adjustment.
So I'll just put that out there because I know it catches your hair on fire.
You hate it. But I had a philosophy teacher who once told me this analogy that has stuck with me forever.
It was just one little moment in time I'll never forget.
And the philosophy teacher said, if you ever had a loose tooth...
Especially when you're a kid.
You've got a tooth that's loose.
What do you do with it? You keep pushing around with your tongue, right?
And when you push it with your tongue, it kind of hurts.
But you can't stop doing it.
It hurts. It doesn't really do anything useful.
But you can't stop.
You just keep hurting yourself with it.
And I had some point about that.
I don't know what the point was.
But I guess that won't change your life the way it did mine.
All right. Yes, there are some pains that we run toward.
So let's talk about the Olympic athlete Sha-Kari Richardson.
You know, I kind of love the name Sha-Kari.
I don't know exactly how to pronounce it.
But would you have a boring name like Scott or Mike or Or, you know, Bob.
You go through life with just your boring name.
But then here's Sha Kari, who has to stop and spell her name for everybody.
It's like, no, there's a hyphen.
No, you're not done.
You're not done with the hyphen.
The hyphen's in the middle, and they just keep going.
It's like two names, but with a hyphen.
No, but it's one name.
So it's very inconvenient, but very exotic.
I like it. So she got accused of having some marijuana in her system.
And she's a sprinter, and she'll maybe ban from competing in the Olympics, which is tragic.
Now, here's the first thing I'd like to say about this.
She needs a nickname.
I don't think she should be called Sha-Kari Richardson, although it's an awesome name, as I said.
I'd like to give her a nickname.
I'd call her the Weed Runner.
The weed runner.
So the weed runner is being supported by AOC, who says, the criminalization and banning of cannabis is an instrument of racist and colonial policy.
The IOC should reconsider its suspension of Ms.
Richardson and any athletes penalized for cannabis use.
This ruling, blah, blah, blah.
Oh, and then she throws in this.
There's something about the IOC denied some kind of swimming caps For natural hair, meaning curlier kind of hair, meaning essentially the kind of hair that black people typically have, which I'm assuming that the topic here is that if your hair has a certain quality, it's harder to wear a standard bathing cap.
So the ones that are more conveniently made if you have a certain kind of hair, especially if you're black, I assume that's what this is about, they got banned.
Now, what do I tell you about AOC? I tell you that she has more game, yeah, exactly, somebody's saying in the comments, she has more game than other people.
And this was something that Republicans should have done first.
Republicans always being accused of being the racist, right?
Oh, you're a Republican, you're a racist.
This was free money sitting on the table.
The country is solidly against this.
No matter what anybody thinks about marijuana, the country does not want this competitor, who struggled and is trying to represent our country and worked hard and everything, had this one little mistake.
The country wants her to compete.
The country wants to back her.
Where are the politicians?
Where the hell are the Republicans?
The Republicans should have seen this, let's say, Ron DeSantis.
Where's Ron DeSantis?
It's sort of a national issue, so maybe he's not weighing in on it.
But the Republicans should have been all the fuck over this.
Because it's an easy one.
It's so easy.
Somebody says Matt Gaetz spoke up.
There you go. So Matt Gaetz is consistently smart enough to talk about the things that are free money.
It's just laying on the table.
Just pick it up. Just pick it up, that free money.
Just take it. And be a little less racist looking.
But no. The Republicans fail totally.
And honestly, If you don't try a little bit to look non-racist, even the people who think you're not racist are going to wonder what's going on, right?
Right? I mean, I back a lot of Republican-y things, even though I don't identify as Republican.
But if something makes sense, such as having strong border security, I've never seen that as a political question.
That's just what works, what doesn't work, etc.
I mean, I would love to be more supportive of Republicans, but when you let something this easy slip away, I mean, this was just a fucking layup.
All you had to do, all you had to do is say, this looks a little extreme, the IOC should look into this.
That's it. Not a big deal.
Just a little bit of support for an American athlete who happens to be black, right?
It's just easy money.
But AOC just comes in and she just hammers this thing.
She hammers it like she owns it.
Free money. She got it.
Republicans left it on the table.
And when they do that, you've got to ask yourself why.
Are they so dumb they couldn't see the play?
Or did they actually not want to be anti-racist?
Even I have a question about that.
And I'm not the person who's, you know...
Accusing Republicans of being racist every day.
But even I have to look at this and say, this was so easy.
So easy. And you couldn't do even this?
Crazy. All right.
Jesse Waters has an interesting attack on Kamala Harris.
So I guess Jesse has a new book.
Whose name I don't remember right now, but just look for the new Jesse Waters book if you'd like to read that.
He was on Tucker Carlson, and he was talking about how Kamala Harris has a, quote, cackle.
And I thought to myself, that's a pretty good kill shot.
If you wanted to guarantee that Kamala Harris was never president, this talk about her cackle That might get you there.
You know, I called this out really early on in saying that she would probably get professional help to get rid of the cackle.
This was even before the election.
Now, I don't know if she got professional help, but she did not get rid of the cackle, so it didn't work if she got any.
And it's a real problem because it just makes you look like a loser, frankly.
It just makes you look like a total loser when you go into ha-ha-ha-ha mode.
You just don't look like a leader.
And I just can't imagine that she could get elected with that cackle.
So, if Fox News and or that side of the world has identified the cackle as an attack vector, it's a good one.
It's totally good. The more they talk about the cackle, the more that's all you'll be able to see.
And all you'll be able to think about, all you'll be able to imagine.
So it's really strong.
It shouldn't be important at all.
If you were to rank it about how actually important it is, it's not actually important at all.
But boy, does it feel like it.
It's just really strong as an emotional response.
Because a lot of us have a real visceral reaction to it, don't you?
Don't you have like a visceral reaction to it?
It's like, ugh. What is that?
And I don't get that from politicians that I don't even agree with.
Take your most disliked politician on whatever is the other side from you.
Do you have that kind of feeling for them?
Or you just don't like their politics?
It's very rare that you'd have a visceral, ugh, reaction to anybody.
So that's a pretty productive attack there.
Now, speaking of Kamala Harris, so one of the big stories is that Axios is reported from anonymous sources that her office is dysfunctional and her chief of staff is mean and things are a mess inside.
Now, how would I treat this story if this story were about the Trump administration?
So I'm going to demonstrate something called fairness, if you've never seen it.
You don't see much of it.
I'm going to treat this story exactly the way I would have if this had been a Trump story.
It's bullshit. It's bullshit.
Now, am I saying that the office is not dysfunctional?
No. I'm saying every office is dysfunctional.
I'm the Dilbert guy.
I created the Dilbert comic strip.
Every office is dysfunctional.
It's only whether people are talking about it or not.
Now, maybe not every unimportant department of every company, but any sizable department, any department that's big enough to have lots of people in it, doing important things, the pressure is high, they're all dysfunctional.
You get an anonymous person to say that your company is dysfunctional, Of course you could.
There's always an anonymous, disgruntled person, and it's usually a person who made suggestions that sucked.
Right? Every office has that person who says, you should do X because I'm the smartest person in the office, and therefore you should do X. And then everybody says, no, X is a dumb idea.
That's like totally stupid.
We've tried X. X doesn't work.
We've got data. X will never work.
You're a complete loser. Get away from us with this.
We must do X. What does that person do?
Does that person say, oh, well, now that you've explained it to me, I'm actually really dumb, and my idea was worthless.
I apologize for wasting your time.
No. No.
That person who thought their suggestion was brilliant will go to anybody who will listen, including the press, and say, these people don't even listen to a good idea, because I had a brilliant idea.
Brilliant idea. And it just got shot down.
Because it's dysfunctional there.
They don't even know a good idea when they see it.
Because I keep coming up with these great ideas and people keep shooting me down.
This is exactly what I would tell you if this anonymous source story had come out about Trump.
It's just a way to...
It's just a criticism that works.
So I would give it zero credibility.
Even if it's true. Meaning that everything's a little bit dysfunctional.
So calling out this one office probably is overkill.
All right. And it's probably a whisper campaign because the other thing that we're hearing, I think Axios reported this, was that Democrat strategists believe that a presidential candidate, Harris, couldn't beat any Republican.
That's a pretty strong statement.
If it's true, it's not sourced, etc.
So don't put too much belief in it.
But I think it might be true.
It rings true to me.
If you said to me, name a Republican who might get nominated, so they'd have to be at least strong enough to get nominated, name any Republican who couldn't beat Kamala Harris and her cackle.
And the answer is, I can't think of one.
I actually can't think of any Republican who couldn't beat Kamala Harris at this point.
Somebody says Mitt Romney, okay, maybe.
But I'm saying they'd have to be able to get nominated.
So anybody who could get nominated is automatically going to be a strong candidate.
Yeah, I don't think there's anybody who couldn't beat her at this point.
So it could be that the Democrats are looking to take her out.
Because if Democrats want to maintain power, she's not the source of that in the future.
So they might need to take her out and make room for somebody else to be the Biden successor.
All right. Let's talk about these Trump indictments.
So CNN, of course, and all the anti-Trump news, needs to make these look as big as possible.
And I don't think they wanted any kind of immediate result.
Because the longer they can drag this out, the longer it's a topic that makes Trump have a problem running for office, if he does again.
So they're saying that this morning CNN's reporting the commission of other crimes in addition to the scheme to defraud in the first degree.
I would call that an alleged scheme.
Because it's not a scheme until it's sort of proven in court, right?
At this point it's an allegation.
I wouldn't call it a scheme at this point.
So I guess there's a A grand larceny in the second degree.
I don't even know what that's about.
Some kind of grand larceny charge.
And that's the second most serious white-collar crime in the state.
And various charges of falsifying records.
Falsifying records seems like a bigger deal, doesn't it?
The other stuff looks like it could be just some kind of a tax-related fine.
I don't know if anybody goes to jail for that.
But falsifying records looks like something you could go to jail for.
Now, I think the way you should see this story is, is it big enough to keep Trump out of office for a second term?
And I'm thinking, it might be.
Yeah, this story is big enough that it will slime the Trump family sufficiently, that it's not really going to matter who's innocent and who's guilty and what the details are.
It just feels like Russian collusion, doesn't it?
It's just sort of the new Russia collusion.
If you can just say it enough times and treat it like it's a headline every day, it's all you need to keep Trump out of office, probably.
So here's a story that is not too terribly important to most of us, but a sign of the times.
So there's a super yacht being built.
A yacht so big...
That it will have 39 apartments that you could buy.
And these apartments would be so impressive that even though it's on a boat, each one of the 39 apartments might have its own gym and might have a library.
It might have inside and outside dining spaces, etc., And the boat is the Sumneo, and it's going to be built and launched in 2024, I guess.
But here's why this is important.
Most of you cannot spend...
I think it's $11 million for an apartment on this boat.
So most of us will not be buying any space on the boat, including me.
But I've said for a long time that the future might be floating cities.
And there would have to be cities that could move Because there might be a weather event, you know, it might be hurricane season or something, they just need to sort of float away to a safer place.
And I've got a feeling that this, although it's just for rich people, I feel like it's going to be a model for the future.
I feel as though, yeah, I feel as though water world is coming.
Because it's basically free land, right?
If you can put your seafaring, whatever, platform In the ocean, you don't have any laws, right?
You can just live there. And I think that our technology for creating energy is better and storing it, so you probably can get enough from the sun and storing it in batteries.
We're close to the point where you can do all that.
Desalinization? Important.
Waste processing?
I don't know where we are on that, whether you could do that well enough to stay at sea.
I imagine you could, but I don't know.
An artificial island was taken down recently, yeah.
So there have been a lot of, you know, seasteading kinds of plans.
But I feel as if it's just the economics and maybe a little bit of technology that needs to advance just a little bit before it becomes a major thing.
It seems to me that living on the ocean is just pretty much guaranteed at this point.
We're going to see it.
All right, what time is it?
It looks like...
Yeah.
So what I did...
I'm going to be talking to the people on Locals after I get off of YouTube.
I've got a story that I can't tell in public.
But I'm going to tell to the locals people.
If you're wondering to yourself, why do people pay a subscription to hear my extra content?
Part of it is that I do share with them things that I won't say in regular public.
Believe it or not, nothing I've ever said privately on the locals community has gotten into the general public yet.
Now, I don't think that can last.
But I'm very impressed.
So I'm not going to say anything that would, you know, get me cancelled or anything.
But there are definitely topics that just don't work in the general public, but they work fine within locals.
So I'll be sharing with them a little story when I get off here.
