Episode 1438 Scott Adams: The Best Ever Coffee With Scott Adams
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Should schools require masks?
Should schools require vaccinations?
White House 1st Amendment violation?
Arizona audit results
President Trump vs General Milley
Quantum computing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, all you YouTubers should be enjoying excellent audio quality today.
Got you all hooked up on two separate Rodecasters, each one going to a separate stream through one microphone.
Took me only five years to get to this place, but I'll bet it sounded really good.
Really good. And if you'd like to take it up to another level, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tanker, chelzer, stein, a kinty jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with, that's right, your favorite liquid.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything amazing.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Join me now. Ah, so good.
Well, we've got all kinds of fun news today.
Are you ready for it? It's coming at you.
Coming at you hot.
Well, Rasmussen had a poll today asking about should schools require masks?
And because all of us follow the science...
When they do a poll about should people, should kids wear masks, obviously everybody answered the same way because we all follow science.
So science told us what to think and then the poll came out and everybody just said the same thing.
No, they didn't.
Of course they didn't.
Because follow the science really means do whatever your political party told you was right.
And so, 58% of Democrats said, yes, put masks on those kids if you need them.
But only 27% of Republicans said the same thing.
So twice as many Democrats are in favor of masks than Republicans.
But I don't think it's so much a science question, although that's a big part of it, as it is a freedom question and a quality of life question, I would think.
So I think Republicans are responding more to the life quality risk management situation.
And how about should schools require vaccinations before you can attend in person?
Once again, Democrats, 56% said yes, but Republicans, only 29%.
Do you think there's any question at all that we could not turn into a political question?
How in the world did this become political?
We're just so primed that whatever the other team says is true, it must be false.
But here we are.
We even think that masks and vaccinations are at least a semi-political question.
I figured out a mystery yesterday, which is I couldn't figure out why I was getting criticism on masks and vaccinations when nobody would ever mention anything that I was wrong about or that they disagreed with me.
But people were pretty darn sure that I was doing something awful and misinforming people, but I couldn't get any specifics.
What exactly are you disagreeing with?
And I think I finally figured out the problem, which is that when I talk about my own experience...
In my own just personal opinion, people think I'm trying to persuade you.
But I say it as often as possible.
I don't care if you get vaccinated.
I really don't.
I don't care at all.
Because I got vaccinated.
So I made my choice.
I made my health care choice.
You make yours.
Do you think I give a fuck?
About whether you've decided that your risk management is better one way or the other?
I trust you.
I completely trust you.
Make your own decision?
I'm fine with that. It doesn't have to be the same as mine.
But here's the hard part.
How can I tell you my personal point of view without it being persuasive accidentally?
Because I've told you I think it would be entirely unethical For me to recommend or recommend against anything medical.
But if you talk about it, you end up being persuasive because it's impossible not to be.
So what do I do?
What do I do if the normal way that I just communicate is extra persuasive, even if I don't want it to be?
Could I just stop talking about it?
I see in the comments, just stop talking about it.
How about fuck now?
I'm going to talk about anything I want.
How about that? How about I'm going to talk about any fucking thing I want?
So let's get that out of the way.
But let me, I guess the best I can do is tell you this.
If I tell you that the way I feel, and I did a tweet on this that was, I think, misinterpreted.
My own fault, I'm sure.
But the tweet said that If you're not vaccinated, you're in the middle of a pandemic.
But if you are vaccinated, it's just Wednesday.
Now, people interpreted that as persuasion.
But it wasn't meant to be.
It was meant to tell you how I feel.
And I imagine some other people feel that way, which is why it's worthy of tweeting.
But the fact that I feel more comfortable vaccinated doesn't have anything to do with you.
I'm just telling you I feel more comfortable.
If you feel more comfortable not being vaccinated, well, that's part of your decision.
And I'm fine with it.
Whatever you want to do is fine.
So just to be clear, I'm not persuading you on masks or vaccinations in terms of using them.
But the question of whether they work or not, that's just somewhat objective.
That's something I can talk about.
But not today. I know you're sick of it.
So anyway, I'm not trying to persuade you on vaccinations.
So here's the weirdest situation.
Most of you know that Jen Psaki said out loud in public that the White House is bringing to the attention of Facebook various accounts that...
Okay, I see that article you're referring to, the MIT technology, but I'm not sure how to fit that in here.
All right, so the White House is telling Facebook to maybe deal with or take down some accounts that are spreading, in their view, misinformation about, I think, about the pandemic, which they call problematic.
That's the word. Now, here's the thing.
I think we all understand that the First Amendment only refers to the government and that a private entity does have the right to have terms of service that could end up censoring you.
And I think everybody gets that, right?
Private companies can do what they want.
Government isn't allowed to restrict your free speech.
But what happens if the government starts working with that private company?
And influencing them in a way that really a private company would have a hard time resisting because of the political considerations for later.
You know, Facebook needs Congress and the president to be at least a little bit on their side for a variety of reasons forever.
So could Facebook really just say, ah, just go pound salt.
We're just going to ignore you.
We don't care if you think this is a problem.
Free speech. Yay!
Well, they could. It's physically possible.
It's legally possible.
But would they?
Would they? In the real sense, don't you think Facebook pretty much is going to be influenced by the government?
Now, As Joel Pollack reported, I guess, and I didn't see it live, but I guess Mark Levin, who knows more about these things than most of us, says that that alone makes it a violation of the...
I think I have this right.
That's what makes it a violation of the First Amendment, because the government is involved.
They're forcing Facebook to do it.
And here's what's funniest... It effectively completes Trump's lawsuit against the platforms.
In this case, specifically Facebook.
But at this point, if you had a jury, and the jury knew that the government was trying to get Facebook to censor some people, doesn't Trump win?
I mean, you know, I'm obviously not a lawyer.
I'd love to see, you know, Viva and Barnes on their podcast talk about this.
Maybe they already have and I've missed it.
But I'd love to get a few more legal opinions, maybe a Dershowitz type of opinion, on whether this is now a slam dunk.
Does Trump win the lawsuit now?
And what would that even mean?
My... My instinct is that he won't win because there are going to be a million twists and turns in the law and God knows what happens there.
So I don't think anything's straightforward on these types of issues.
But from a common sense perspective, you know, outside of the legal domain, since most of us are not lawyers...
So Aviva Barnes, I'm reading a comment, said this lawsuit was dead a few days ago But that could change now.
Right. Yeah. This new information seems like it would make a difference to me.
And if the only difference it made is in public opinion, that's still a pretty big difference.
All right. There was a big ivermectin study, a big randomized control trial that apparently got pulled back Because it was not so good.
Meaning it might have been fraudulent.
Not sure of that, but there's some suggestions it was just complete bullshit.
Now the problem was, as I understand it, that that particular trial was extra large.
And if you do a meta-study where you look at all the tests and you sort of lump them together and say, all right, each of these individual tests may have its problems, but if you lump them all together and see what the average is, you can sort of average out the problems and get something useful.
But what happens if your entire result is biased by one trial?
Let's say there's one big one, and you average that in with the little ones.
So the big one basically makes all the difference.
If you took it down, it might even change the outcome.
What happens if the biggest one is a fraud?
What happens to your meta-analysis?
Well, you know, it depends on the sizes, right?
It depends on how big that fraudulent one was.
But we now have, once again, two movies on one screen.
I think Brett Weinstein has responded to this by saying that this one study doesn't change the fact that, generally speaking, pretty much all the studies point in the same direction.
So even if you take it out, it doesn't make much difference.
Whereas other people who are smarter than I am say, nope, we did the math, and if you take this one out, it changes everything.
Which one's true? No idea.
I have no idea. And if you think you know, well, you're probably wrong.
Because we don't know.
This is, again, one of those situations where somebody can show you an apple and say, there's no apple in my hand, and half of the world don't see the apple.
Half of the people see it, and half of the people don't.
What the hell are you going to do?
Do your own research?
That never works.
Do your own research.
To me, that's one of the most ridiculous things you've ever heard.
There used to be some investment, I don't know, I think it was a low-cost brokerage service.
They used to tell people to do their own research before they invested.
Probably about the dumbest thing anybody could ever do if you're buying individual stocks.
Literally the dumbest thing you can do.
But people don't know that.
They're like, oh, I'll do my own research.
I will use my gigantic brain to peer into the complexity and come up with a brilliant idea or an opinion.
Then I wish to hell I could block people on YouTube.
Because you motherfuckers, I want to block us so badly.
Not all of you, of course. Just the ones who are screaming about the sound today, still.
Can you fucking shut up?
But apparently I don't have blocking ability.
I only have the ability to, I don't know, hide you from the stream or something like that.
All right. Well, this guy, a hide user on this channel, see if that makes any difference.
Or did it just hide it from me?
All right, it's just one person.
I think I got rid of him. All right, so here's what we know about ivermectin.
Nothing. Nothing.
I've been looking into this ivermectin for how long now?
You're reading all the stories and following it and everything.
And I'm at the point where I would say I don't know anything.
Because I can't tell which of these two completely different worlds is right.
If you take this one study out, does it change anything?
Some people say yes.
Some people say no. And that's all I know.
So can't even form an opinion on it.
Well, apparently Southern California, or at least maybe L.A., is looking to reintroduce mask mandates.
Are you fucking kidding me?
How would you like to be Governor Newsom?
He's got a recall campaign...
And half of the state just found out that they might need masks again?
How would you like to be running a recall election under that scenario?
I feel like that should be enough to defeat them, but maybe California won't work that way.
And I also wonder how many people would have to just refuse paying attention to the rule before it had to just go away.
What do you think is the percentage of People who, let's say, would take off a mask and go into a store anyway and then force the store to kick them out.
Go peacefully, but just make the store kick you out.
And what percentage of the public would have to do that before the store would give up?
I feel 20% would be plenty.
It might be closer to 5% or 10%, but 20% would get it done.
Yeah, 30% gets it done for sure.
Because the stores don't have that kind of resource, and they're not really in the job of policing.
California made the tragic mistake of deciding that it wouldn't prosecute small crimes.
Huh. The state won't prosecute small crimes, and not wearing a mask would be a...
Very, very small crime.
I'm not even sure you'd call it a crime.
What would it be? A violation of a regulation?
I don't know. I don't even know if it's a regulation.
What is it? So, at what point do 20% of the public just say, we're done?
I think 20% gets it done.
We'll find out. I don't think that this...
That this new masking mandate will hold, but we'll see.
We'll see. Well, let's talk about the election audits.
Talk about your two movies on one screen situation.
So we have two completely different worlds.
In one world, the courts have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and according to factcheck.org, as of right now...
This is brand new, current information as of right now.
Factcheck.org says, audits of ballots and voting equipment found no problems with the 2020 results in Maricopa County.
But debunked claims about voter fraud are flowing again on social media amid a Republican-led audit in Maricopa.
So by this worldview...
Courts have found no evidence of widespread fraud, and the audit so far in Maricopa has found nothing wrong.
Nothing to worry about.
Okay, that's one world.
Here's the other world.
74,000 mail-in ballots in Maricopa County alone have no record of them being sent.
What? No record of them being sent.
Now, of course, there should be some kind of record, but they're not.
And on Twitter, Christopher Hill asked this question, which you're going to be pissed off at.
Watch how pissed off you are when you hear Christopher Hill's question.
Are you ready? I guarantee this is going to piss you off.
All right, most of you already heard the news that there are over 74,000 mail-in ballots with no record of being sent.
Okay? We all know that part now, right?
Here's a question that you didn't ask yet, and it's going to piss you off.
Christopher Hill asks, I wonder what was the vote ratio of the no-record ballots versus the others?
Right? Why the fuck don't you know that?
Who is it who's going to tell us that there are 74,000 ballots with no record of them being sent without also telling us how the fuck they voted?
Right? Isn't that like the whole fucking point?
Because what if these 74,000 votes were pretty much in line with the rest of the votes?
Right? What's that mean?
Well, it probably means that there's no problem.
But what if the votes were all for Joe Biden or 90% for Joe Biden?
Big problem. Really, really big, big, big, big problem.
Are you telling me that it was important to tell us that all these mail-in ballots don't have a record of being sent, but it wasn't important enough to fucking count them and find out who they voted for and just tell us?
Just fucking tell us.
Right? Now, I was open-minded about the quality of the auditors doing the audit.
Maybe they're good. Maybe they're not.
Maybe they don't have to be that good to find problems.
I don't know. I'm no expert on this.
But when I see that somehow this information came out of the audit about the mail-in ballots that have no record of being sent, and they don't tell us how those people voted...
That's frickin' incompetent.
Right? I mean, if anything else, just the communication about it is incompetent.
I mean, completely incompetent.
Could not be more incompetent.
I'm talking General Milley level of incompetent.
That's pretty high.
We'll talk about him in a minute.
Maricopa County tweeted, fact check...
We did not agree to do a forensic audit with uncertified contractors.
Oh, damn, this is a problem.
So it turns out that the contractors who are doing the audit, who are hired, I think, by mostly Republicans, they're uncertified.
Damn it. Uncertified contractors.
Wow. That's a big problem.
Do you think we should get some certified auditors?
How about getting some certified ones?
Do you know why we don't have any certified audits?
It's not a thing.
It's not a fucking thing.
There are no certified audits or auditors.
Did you go to the Office of Auditor Licensing?
No. It doesn't exist.
There's no fucking thing called a certified contractor.
But here the Maricopa County is like, nope, nope.
We've got no certified auditors working on this.
No certified contractors.
It's going to be a problem.
Oh, my God.
So apparently the things that the auditors have found so far suggest that, number one, you can't fully audit the election.
Would everybody say that's true?
No matter what you think about the audit, no matter whether you think there will be widespread fraud there or not, no matter what you think about the outcome, is it a true statement that we can say for sure that the election can't be audited?
We didn't build a system that could be audited.
Now, and I think everybody's agreeing with that, if you don't build a system that That can be audited.
And keep in mind that we counted the votes the first time in, what, two days?
But to audit the system takes months?
Do you see how poorly designed that is?
That the original vote takes two days, but an audit takes months?
The audit should take the same amount of time.
Or something similar.
I mean, maybe it takes a week, but it shouldn't take months.
If it takes months, you've designed the whole system wrong.
And apparently a lot of what the delay is, is trying to free up records from various people who have them, don't want to give them.
And then you have the electronic voting machines, which the company has some proprietary stuff.
And so apparently the records are just not available.
So you actually can't audit the election.
What would you say about an election that can't be audited?
Well, you can say two things.
First thing you can say is no court has found any widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
Would you all agree that's true?
No court has determined that there is widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
I think that's true. It's also true that no lawnmower has ever baked a cake.
Would you agree?
No lawnmower has ever baked a cake.
Also, no glass of water has ever flown to Mars.
It's true. It's true.
I'm not even making it up.
No glass of water has ever launched itself into space and gone to Mars.
Likewise, no court has ever found widespread fraud.
Now, you might say to yourself, but it's got to...
A glass of water is really not designed to launch into space and go to Mars.
And a lawnmower isn't really designed to make a cake.
That's the point. The court is not designed to audit elections.
They can only look at what's presented to them, which is a little fraction of the world, and they just said, we're not going to deal with that for procedural reasons usually.
So that's about it. So it doesn't mean anything the courts didn't find what they're not looking for.
But here's what we can say for sure.
If a system can't be audited, it will be corrupted.
Either already has, or will be soon.
Does anybody disagree with that statement?
I say it a lot. I say it a lot because it's so provocative.
That we don't know what's happened so far, but any system that can't be audited...
We'll eventually be corrupted.
Pretty much guaranteed.
Because people who are willing to do this exist everywhere.
We're saturated with people who wouldn't do a bad thing if they could get away with it.
And if you can't be audited, you can definitely get away with it.
Right? Would anybody disagree with the fact that there are plenty of people willing to do it Because we live in that kind of a world.
And if they know they're going to get away with it because it can't be audited, of course they'll do it.
Of course. There isn't the slightest chance they won't do it eventually.
You just don't know if it's happened yet.
There's a weird thing happening with Anthony Bourdain.
There's a new documentary film.
Apparently somebody created an AI that could speak in his style.
And the AI actually came up with some sentences that he never spoke.
So the AI of Anthony Bourdain had its own thoughts.
What? And so the question is, is it ethical to use an AI to put words in the mouths of the deceased?
Well, as you know, many of you know, I have offered that I would like to be A model for one of the first AIs.
Now, I guess Bourdain might be one of the first to be the model.
But I would offer myself as someone whose public thoughts and words are so pervasive on the Internet, and also the video and audio of me, That I would be a good candidate to turn into AI, even if you're just practicing, right?
I see your question about AOC, and yes, she's still smart, even if you don't like what she said yesterday or the day before.
So I would like to give permission that any AI that's built based on me has my permission to extend my personality, right?
So if my AI wants to say things that I never said, but seems to be compatible with what I might have said, I'm okay with that.
We all evolve, right?
You've certainly changed over your lifetime.
You're not the same person you were as a kid.
So if you can change over your lifetime in your organic entity, once I become a digital entity...
Why can't I keep evolving?
So I'd like to give permission today that if somebody wants to make an AI based on me, just scoop up all the information about me on the Internet.
And if you wanted to say new things after I'm deceased, you have my explicit permission.
All right. I'm loving this dispute between Trump and General Milley.
So on Morning Joe, I think it was, it was reported that, reportedly, General Milley, on January 6th or so, got a call from an old friend, quote, an old friend, with an explicit warning that Trump and his allies were trying to, quote, overturn the government.
Ooh, that's bad.
That's bad. They might try to overturn the government.
What's that mean? What does it mean to overturn the government exactly?
If an election was shown to be fraudulent and then the outcome was reversed, would that be called overturning a government?
Because it sort of would be, but it would be working within the system.
If protesters protest and try to get the system that exists to work to make the election more credible or even change the result, is that overturning an election?
Or is that just making sure democracy worked and got you what you wanted?
Well, I would say that words like overturning the government are kind of dangerous.
And apparently, what Milley said was, quote, they may try, but they're not going to effing succeed, he told AIDS. They're not going to succeed.
Right. Because it's a bunch of people with no weapons against the military of the United States.
Right. So I didn't really need a four-star general to tell me that guy with Viking hat cannot defeat a tank.
We kind of knew that, right?
So General Milley is pretty tough.
I'm going to...
If they think they can defeat the entire military of the United States, well, they've got another thing coming with their Viking hats and their twist ties and their blunt objects.
We've got it covered.
We'll drone their asses if they try.
I swear, every day I think General Milley gets dumber.
So Trump, in his inimitable way, responded.
Thank you.
I know how much you've missed the entertainment that is President Trump.
I'm going to read to you exactly as he wrote it.
Hey, good drawing of Dilbert there.
Exactly as he wrote it.
And I would like to tell you that the most underrated thing about Trump is that he's an exceptional writer.
I hate to tell you.
because I know a lot of you, even supporters, are like, what?
What? Trump is an exceptional writer.
He is really good at writing.
I mean, better than just about, I don't know, 99% of writers.
So, because he keeps it simple, which is a skill, not a defect.
And it took me about five years to convince the world that simplicity is a skill.
It's not a defect.
So listen to...
Just listen to how his writing pops.
Now, he probably just dictated this, so it sounds...
It also makes it sound more natural.
But look at the simplicity and the...
It just pops.
All right, a statement by Donald Trump, 45th president of the United States.
Despite massive voter fraud and irregularities during the 2020 election scam, first sentence, his first sentence just makes your blood start to boil.
The hair on my arm is standing up.
It's the first sentence.
And he's already got me in, I'm already in like a four-alarm panic situation.
It's like, despite the massive voter fraud and irregularities during the 2020 election scam, that we are now seeing play out in very big and important states, I never threatened or spoke about, to anyone, a coup of our government.
So ridiculous!
So ridiculous is perfect writing.
Because... He doesn't give you all his reasons.
He goes, so ridiculous.
So that's good form.
He goes, sorry to inform you, but an election is my form of coup.
And if I was going to do a coup, one of the last people I would want to do it with is General Mark Milley.
And now it gets fun.
Now, do you believe him?
Do his words suggest that he's telling the truth?
I'm going to say yes.
You know, usually it's a little hard to tell if a politician is lying.
Well, maybe it's not that hard if their lips are moving.
But the way he defends himself does come across as completely legitimate.
And I'm not saying that just because I like Trump, which I do.
I like him as a person.
But I think it just looks legitimate.
Let me go on.
So he's talking about General Mark Milley, and he says he got his job only because the world's most overrated general, James Mattis, could not stand him.
Now he's sort of an appeal to authority that other people that you might like also don't like him.
Could not stand him, had no respect for him, and would not recommend him.
That's pretty damning.
Because most of you, even if you don't like Trump, you might like James Mattis, because he was sort of anti-Trump.
And apparently, according to Trump, he had no respect for Milley.
To me, the fact that Mattis didn't like him, just like Obama didn't like him...
Oh, now this is good. Obama didn't like him either.
I don't know if that's true.
But, you know, let's say it is.
Um... And actually fired Millie.
So Obama fired Millie?
Okay. I didn't know that was true, but probably true.
Was a good thing, not a bad thing.
I often act counter to people's advice who I don't respect.
He doesn't even respect his advice.
Ouch! Then he goes, in any event, I lost respect for Millie when we walked together to St.
John's Church, which was still smoldering from a radical left fire set that day before.
Side by side, a walk that has now been proven to be totally appropriate.
And that's true.
And the following day, Millie choked like a dog.
I love it when Trump says that.
Choked like a dog.
Choked like a dog. He didn't just hesitate.
He didn't just choke.
He choked like a dog.
Now, remember, nobody can write the way that Trump does.
It's visual, right?
So he changed whatever behavior Billy had into a visual of a dog choking.
That's great writing.
It's great writing. Millie choked like a dog in front of the fake news when they told him they thought he should not have been walking with the president, which turned out to be incorrect.
Now here, Trump is actually completely factually accurate.
He apologized profusely, making it a big story.
Instead of saying, I am proud to walk with and protect the president of the United States.
You know, Trump's right.
Right? Trump's right.
Right? The correct thing that Milley should have done is to say exactly what Trump just said.
That it was his responsibility to protect the president, basically.
And then he says, had he said that, it would have all been over.
Probably true. No big deal.
But I saw at the moment he had no courage or skill.
He's just eviscerating this guy.
Certainly not the type of person I would be talking coup with.
And then Trump says, I'm not into coups!
This is where he sold me completely.
It's one thing to say I wasn't doing it.
And then you can say, well, maybe you were.
Maybe you were doing it. You just say you were doing it.
But he goes to another level and he says, I'm not into coups.
And... It feels true.
Because his opinion is something he doesn't really hold back on.
Right? Trump is notoriously loose with facts.
Correct me if I'm wrong, right?
Trump is very loose with facts and fails the fact-checking all the time, usually with hyperbole.
It's not a big deal.
But does he ever hold back his opinion?
Think about it. Does he ever hold back his opinion?
I don't think so.
I don't know if he's ever held back his opinion.
And so he just gave it to you.
I'm not into coups.
That's an opinion. Right?
So when Trump gives you his opinion, it does come across as credible because he doesn't filter his opinion.
Maybe he should, right? Maybe we think he shouldn't be so opinionated, but I've never seen him filter an opinion.
So I believe that he's completely accurate about this.
And he goes on, in fact, around the same time, Millie, in a conversation, was an advocate for changing all of the names of our military forts and bases.
So he's dragging him into that conversation.
I realized then, also, he was a much different person than I had hoped.
I said to him, spend more time thinking about China and Russia and less time on being politically correct.
Ouch. Ouch.
Trump just destroyed this guy.
Now, but of course, since Trump is sort of semi-banned from social media, he has to get there indirectly with these press statements and hoping other people tweet him.
So I don't know how many people, you know, ended up seeing this.
But, man, that's just such good writing, and it did ring true.
Like, yeah, I'm not sure I would...
I'm not going to...
I'm not going to say that everything Trump says is going to match the facts, but I believe his opinions are really his opinions.
That stuff does look like he consistently gives you his real opinions.
All right. So how are we doing here?
That is just about what I wanted to talk about today.
Did I miss any topics that you're dying to talk about?
Somebody says the sunspots predict an ice age.
Well, maybe. Delve into Fulton County tomorrow.
Well, I feel like the Fulton County audit and the Maricopa audit, they're kind of almost the same thing.
I think that if one of them is...
Is corrupt, the other one will be too.
Feels like it. And if one of them is clean, probably the other one's clean.
We'll find out. And the South China Sea.
Yeah, you know, the South China Sea is just an ongoing cat and mouse thing, but ultimately China's going to own the South China Sea, I think.
I don't see how that could go any other way.
They're just too big and too determined, and they have too much of a long-term feeling about it.
Oh, yeah, quantum entanglement.
Apparently there was a big breakthrough in quantum computing.
Specifically, they succeeded in changing a particle at a distance without any time passing, which is a weird part of quantum physics.
Now, if they can commercialize that...
And maybe it can't even be done.
I don't know if you can bring it down to a device that you can actually just fire up and boot up and it's a computer.
But if they can, quantum computer just sort of changes everything.
You know, I don't think we're ready for it.
The degree of difference that will make to have computing that's suddenly...
Is it a million times better?
Could somebody give me an estimate?
If quantum computing works and we can commercialize it and make it a product, would it be a million times faster?
Something like that?
Or, you know, a thousand times faster?
What would be the right...
Somebody says a quadrillion.
I don't think so. But the difference is not, like, just faster.
Right? Every year your computer gets a little faster, but you don't notice that much.
But if it's a thousand times faster, everything's different.
The applications you can do, yeah, Bitcoin mining, encryption will be beaten.
I mean, everything just changes.
And I would imagine that the first government to build a quantum computer isn't going to tell anybody for a while.
Because the first country that gets the quantum computer will have this enormous...
Enormous military advantage.
So I don't think they're going to tell anybody for a while.
Maybe we already have it.
Maybe we're already unencrypting other nations all the time.
Google said it was 100 million times faster.
Really? 100 million times faster?
Really? Maybe.
I mean, I'm not going to...
So it's not speed, it's bandwidth, somebody says.
Bandwidth? I see what you're saying.
It's a transmission thing, but it's also computing.
Jim says that the Israeli COVID information shows that the vaccination does not work.
Now, I believe that you are wrong and that that's just bad analysis.
And... I think that the people who have the vaccinations are not dying.
There's plenty of spread, but I believe that you would find in Israel that the vaccinated people are just not dying.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they're not dying, the vaccination works.
Do we agree? Yeah.
And in the meantime, as somebody said in the comments, we're educating Chinese students on quantum computing in this country.
Probably a bad idea.
Have we given Internet access to Cuba yet?
And if not, why not?
Quantum computing is not useful for almost anything.
Well, not yet. But...
If it does what its promise suggests, it would be a very big deal.
All the hospitals are filling up with the no vaccinated folks.
All right, yeah, I'm seeing a lot of Larry Elder for governor.
I'm going to have to look into him.
I'm going to block you.
All right, Big Boy Floyd says, please check the Rodecaster.
I think you turned off YouTube audio.
No, I did not.
So you get hidden.
And anybody else who thinks that the sound is bad gets hidden.
All right. 3D printers were supposed to change everything.
Nope. Well, I would say 3D printers are the flip phone of smartphones so far, meaning that 3D printing has to reach a certain level before the big change.
I mean, when you get to the point where ordering from Amazon doesn't make sense, because you can just print it, that changes everything.
Somebody on the Locals platform just suggested that I mess with the YouTube feed by pretending to talk, but not talking.
That would be unkind but funny.
Can you print a brick?
Yes, you can. Yeah, you know, I think that 3D printers...
When a 3D printer can print a 3D printer, I'll be impressed.
You know, to that point...
Years ago, I was at a dinner with a futurist.
Paul... I can't remember his last name, but he was a famous futurist.
And years ago, he said that the biggest change in civilization will happen when robots can make robots.
And at the time, you know, robotics and AI wasn't nearly as advanced because this was probably 15 years ago.
And I thought to myself, I think you're right.
As soon as the robots can make other robots, we're done working.
It's just going to be robots making robots.
No, it wasn't Kurzweil.
It was Paul...
I can't remember his last name.
All right. Locals replay yesterday had low audio.
Somebody says, no, it didn't.
I replayed it and it had loud audio.
Drug overdoses are up 30%.
Yeah.
Oh, Ehrlich, yeah, it was Paul Ehrlich.
How the hell did you come up with his last name just from his first name?
That was pretty good, whoever did that.
All right.
Can you look at both of us or start to think we're not being ignored?
Well, I'm trying to. Yeah.
So I've got another iPad on order and then I'll have the cameras together in the center and then we'll be fine.
And that is all I have to do to say today to YouTubers.
