Episode 1652 Scott Adams: Let's Figure Out What is Going On in Ukraine, Great Clawback Update
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Seeking to understand Ukraine
Someone always gets rich from war
Creating additional Switzerlands
Cyberattack precursor to invasion?
Worldwide hum phenomena
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of your entire life.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
That's what I call it.
You are free to call it anything you want.
And the doctor is always late, so you wait a few minutes.
What's the problem? Hey, how would you like to enjoy the Simultaneous Sip?
Sip to the truckers.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel, a stye, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a fizzle of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And if you don't think this makes your life better, I feel sorry for you.
Go! Here's a question I ask myself.
If you take a history class in America, do you ever get two books with two different histories?
Like, here's the history of the Civil War.
Oh, and then here's the other book with the alternate history of the Civil War.
That doesn't really happen, does it?
But do you think that during the time of those events, there was only one interpretation?
No. I don't know.
Do you think it's always been true that there are two completely separate interpretations of what's happening at the moment?
It could be worse now, but maybe not.
And I'm wondering if the consensus of history is the only place that the two movies become one.
So here's the one that I'm tracking.
In the case of COVID, everything happened kind of quickly and within a couple of years there.
So we got to see weird things happen quickly.
And one of the weird things was how quickly two complete interpretations of what was happening were living side by side.
The weirdest one that's happening now is happening to the right.
This will make you a little uncomfortable, I know.
But there's a large group of people who are smart, influential, engaged people who know a lot.
So this is just a complete compliment.
People who are really high-qualified thinkers who are saying out loud that because we're doing things or the governments are loosening up and have some different opinions about how to handle the pandemic now, that that's what they should have done from the beginning.
Now, does that make any sense to any of you?
I want to see if anybody else is experiencing that movie.
Who is experiencing the movie that because of the way we're acting now, loosening up with the pandemic, etc., that that's the way we should have acted in the beginning?
You know, just letting everybody do whatever they wanted?
So somebody says after the first two weeks, it didn't make sense.
I see some yeses.
So there are enough yeses here to say, without arguing who is right or wrong, can we conclude that that's a very different interpretation?
And it's pretty sticky, too.
Now, at the same time that you believe that, you also understand that all of the variables are different, right?
So if it's true that we should have always acted the same...
That could be true. But it would be true that we should have acted the same no matter what the variables were.
That actually could be a reasonable view.
That whether millions of people were dying or not dying, you'd sort of act the same.
Because freedom is more important, I suppose.
So you could make that argument.
But... But can you make the argument that the people who changed their opinion because all the variables changed are therefore irrational because they changed their opinion?
Does it make sense to mock people for changing their view when all of the variables changed, like a lot?
Does it? But it looks like that's going to happen.
All right. So at some point, we will, I guess, have one worldview.
But I don't know which one it'll be.
I think the one worldview will be, whether this is true or not, I think the consensus of history will be that vaccination worked.
Again, I'm not saying it's true.
Because I don't want to argue any of that stuff right now.
I'm just saying that I think history will say vaccinations worked, they helped get through the pandemic, the side effects were minimal, and that it was a great victory of governments or something.
I think it's going to look like that.
And then probably something about Omicron finishing it off.
But... Speaking of many worlds, do you have any idea what's happening in Ukraine?
How many of you think you understand the Ukraine situation?
Like, you know the basics, that Putin has amassed an army, might go in there.
But isn't it all just sort of confusing?
And do you feel that your, let's say your mainstream media entities, do you think that they've explained to you what's going on?
So I did a little bit of, you know, that thing that I say is ridiculous.
Doing your own research.
I always mock doing your own research because nobody's smart enough to know if they're looking at the right research.
I don't know. I can read a lot of stuff, but I don't know if it's true.
So let me tell you some of the things that I've found without a, let's say, without much of an opinion about what's true.
Right? So the Ukraine story has at least two completely different movies.
One movie is the one we get in the United States.
And that movie is that Putin is an aggressive tyrant.
He wants to control neighboring countries and control everything.
And everything that you see Putin do is because he's sort of an expansionist dictator and wants to control everything.
So that's our view.
Would you say that's sort of what you're hearing?
Does that sound pretty close?
And that what we're trying to do is hold the line and make sure that Putin doesn't get any progress so that NATO looks like it's strong.
Yeah, that it's a NATO-related issue.
Now, how many of you know that there's one narrative that the United States staged a coup in Ukraine in 2014, or was behind the coup, Or revolution, depending on who you're talking to.
And how many of you know that Ukraine went from more of a Russia puppet to more of an American puppet because of this mysterious coup?
Basically, we took Ukraine from Putin, didn't we?
Am I wrong? Is there somebody who knows more about this stuff than I do who can validate the claim that the United States probably...
Probably took Ukraine from Putin's control.
But you don't hear that, do you?
Have you ever heard CNN say that?
Now, I believe that's an unproven allegation, meaning that we don't know that the CIA or the U.S. was really behind it.
But it sort of looks like a Hillary thing, doesn't it?
It sort of looks Hillary-ish, for sure.
So... And who knows when that was started.
So now we've got this highly corrupt government, but at least it's less pro-Putin, so that would look good.
How many know that NATO wants to put a bunch of missiles in Ukraine?
Did you know that we want to put missiles in Ukraine that's right on...
I think they're defensive missiles, but they don't have to be, right?
I mean... Initially, they might be defensive.
But what do you think Russia should do about NATO having 12,000 troops on their border and 22 fighter jets sort of in that general region?
Not all of NATO. That's just in the closest to the border of Russia, I guess.
And so we've got this situation, and...
Can you be sure you know which way would be in your benefit if it went?
In other words, you watching this, do you know if you would be better off or whatever country you're watching from if Russia attacked or if they didn't?
Do you know? You kind of assume that any war is bad, right?
But I'll bet it's not bad for everybody because no wars are.
There's always somebody who gets rich in a war.
And so one of the questions I'd ask myself that I haven't seen anybody deal with in the media is that would Russia be economically advantaged or disadvantaged if they conquered Ukraine militarily and tried to hold it?
What do you think?
What's your common sense tell you?
Such as it is. That would Russia be better off or worse off for owning Ukraine again, but if they had to hold it militarily?
Better off or worse off?
I'm seeing mixed opinions.
Worse off, worse off, better off.
I don't know. To me, it looks really expensive.
Because I heard one analyst say that Russia might not even have the money to keep their army masked on the border for long.
It's so expensive to move an army that just having 100,000 soldiers and all the support staff on the border in case they want to attack might be too expensive.
So one of the strategies that the U.S. might be pursuing...
It's to see how long we can make them wait.
Because the longer they wait, the more bankrupt they go.
Russia, that is. So it should be to our advantage, even if we think they're definitely going to invade, to just delay it as long as possible because it's so expensive.
And I'll bet we're spending pennies on the dollar compared to them because we're not putting much of an active defense in Ukraine.
So, when you hear Russia say, you know, it's almost like the U.S. is trying to create a, you know, a fake reason for Russia to invade, you know, first you laugh that off, and then you say to yourself, well, we really don't know what's going on.
Could it be that you could destroy Russia and Putin's influence by letting him take Ukraine?
That's possible, isn't it?
Don't you think that Ukraine could be a big enough problem to Putin that it would suck up all of his resources?
How strong is the Russian army today when they have so much of their resources in one place?
Weakened, I would think. So I don't understand how this entire chessboard works, but I'll give you a few more points of view from this.
One point of view is that Russia is on a roll, and Putin's on a roll.
So they would say, well, he won in Syria, he took over Crimea, Apparently, he recently effectively took over Belarus, which was more of an ambiguous situation.
So it would look as if everything that Putin does, he's getting away with.
So he's growing his influence.
He's maybe protecting his borders.
Maybe he's rebuilding the greatness of Russia.
But then, is that the only thing he wants?
No. What do you think Putin actually wants and why don't we know?
Do you think this is mostly defensive or mostly offensive?
Here's my take on it.
That Russia's only asset is energy and military.
Am I right? Basically, it's a two-variable country.
Energy and military.
If we could put offensive weapons in Ukraine, it would basically make their military almost useless.
Because if you had, let's say, nuclear missiles that could reach Moscow in 10 minutes, it wouldn't matter what kind of army Russia had.
They would be completely vulnerable at any size.
So we're looking to completely neuter the power of Russia as one of their two assets and maybe neuter their second one, which is get rid of that pipeline.
So if Russia attacks, that's probably going to give us reason to put more missiles wherever we can get them, which might not be Ukraine, but it would give us a pretext to move more missiles in on his border, It would be hugely expensive.
It would bog down his army.
It would be, PR-wise, a disaster.
It would be a Hitler-like look.
And then we could obviously put these sanctions on and get back in the energy business and get Putin out of it, which would be expensive, but it could happen.
So I have a feeling that the U.S. has a view that if Russia attacks Russia, It would be the worst thing for Russia of all time.
It would be walking right into a trap that we want, which is an economic trap.
You don't want to walk into an economic trap when you think you're having an army, or you think you're having a war.
If Russia thinks this is a kinetic war, and the US thinks it's an economic war, who's going to win?
Who's going to win if Russia thinks it's a real war and the US thinks it's an economic trick?
We're going to trick them into spending all their money and bankrupting themselves.
I feel like I would bet on the economic war.
Some of the things that Moscow is demanding, like reduction of forces on NATO and not letting other countries in and getting rid of missiles and all that stuff, Wouldn't we ask for the same thing if Russia had assets in Cuba or Mexico or something?
Wouldn't we ask for exactly the same thing?
It's kind of weird that we don't see that as a reasonable thing to ask for.
You know, I threw out this idea that was shot down quickly on Twitter, but I think I can defend it better.
There should be something called a Switzerland option for any country that's in Ukraine's situation.
Meaning that it could...
Let me just suggest what this would look like.
Now, Switzerland is famously neutral, so it doesn't get attacked.
But as often people point out, it doesn't seem to have strategic value.
It's got mountains. It's got an armed militia.
It's not a threat to anybody.
It's a good place to park your illegal dictator money.
So there are lots of reasons that Switzerland is not like any other place.
So don't get too hung up on the Switzerland comparison.
The only part of the comparison is could you create new neutral countries with different sets of why they're neutral, you know, different than Switzerland, but could you create, like, a neutral country that was never neutral before?
Well, here's how I would do it.
I would create a process within the United Nations in which a country could, but maybe only with unanimous support, Or something close to unanimous.
Let's say every country in the world says, you know, this country is going to be nothing but trouble.
So whoever controls it is going to put missiles there.
That's bad. So how about nobody controls it?
And you get literally every country in the United Nations to declare it neutral.
Once it's declared neutral, then every country in the world also has the responsibility to stop doing business with anybody who attacks it.
Because at this point, you can't be shut off from all economics in the world and expect to survive.
You turn into North Korea.
So I would think that you could create a neutral country out of anything, no matter how vulnerable they are, no matter how strategic.
I think you could make any country neutral as long as every country agreed to cut off the finance operations of anybody who attacked it.
I'll just put that out there.
Don't know if it would work, but if you don't try, you never know.
I saw a military expert say that if Russia attacks Ukraine, it would be signaled by a massive cyber attack.
So they would do a cyber attack first.
To which I said to myself, if Russia did a massive cyber attack...
Would the United States not learn how Russia does massive cyber attacks?
Would that not be pretty useful for us to know?
Likewise, if Russia invaded, would it not be using modern equipment and modern techniques, which would be very revealing and useful for NATO to understand?
Is it possible that we are luring Russia into a war to figure out how they fight?
Or at least partly. You know, I don't think anything is being done for one reason.
I think things are done for, you know, a basket of reasons.
But I wonder if that's one of them, to learn the Russian military secrets in a way that we couldn't have seen in Syria, for example.
So, I don't know.
Now, another possibility is that we think we could actually stop them if they attacked.
Because we don't know what weapons Ukraine has, right?
I don't think that we advertise the good stuff.
I think we advertise the stuff that they would have known about anyway.
But if Ukraine has some kind of amazing, let's say, small...
I like to use this example.
But if they have some amazing capability with these small drones, that each one can, let's say, be a suicide attacker on a tank or something, it could be that we think we can give Russia a black nose sufficient that...
It would stall it forever for any future provocations.
So who knows what everybody's thinking?
And I don't think that there's one set of view anywhere about this.
I think that they're probably in the CIA. Let me toss this out here.
I'm continuously wondering why the U.S. and Russia have any conflict at all.
Except that it's historical.
Like, they're always doing things to us, so we always do things to them, and vice versa, forever.
And how much do you think it matters that the CIA is presumably fairly stocked with people who understand Russia but not much else?
Am I right? What would happen if the CIA had a bunch of Russia experts But they had fewer experts in other countries.
Wouldn't the CIA be obsessed with Russia simply because that's what their staff is?
It's just a bunch of people trained in that area of espionage.
So could it be that all of our problems have to do with staffing in...
Both Russia's secret services and ours.
And that they're simply staffed with a bunch of Russia fighters in one and Cold War warriors in the other.
And that if you just did some employee reorganization, maybe some forced retirements or something, you'd get a whole different world.
Because it does seem to me that if you were a Russia expert, you would need to drum up some Russia problems, wouldn't you?
You would have to create some Russia problems so that you have the greatest career opportunity.
So it seems to me we've created a business model where our CIA should want wars with Russia because they have a bunch of Russia experts on their staff.
And they'll all get promotions if there's a Russia conflict.
I worry about that. The weirdest thing about this is that the Russia Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so they're saying that the Western countries are spreading a large-scale disinformation campaign about an allegedly impending Russian invasion of Ukraine, quote, in order to divert attention from their own aggressive actions.
Is that true?
Do you think that Russia put 100,000 forces on the border and knows that everybody knows that, and they're willing to stay in public still with 100,000 forces amassed on the Ukraine border that are obviously offensive forces, or so we were told, are they really telling the world that they're there for no reason?
Is Russia really trying to tell us that they put 100,000 forces there?
No reason. Or are they saying that they're defensive?
Because nobody's suggesting we're attacking Russia.
So, here's the question to you.
How do you know they have 100,000 forces there?
And why didn't somebody ask them that question?
You don't think we can get to the Russian foreign ministry guy and ask him a question?
I think he's pretty available.
Why don't we ask him the question, do you in fact have massive forces, give them some numbers, 100,000 or so on the border of Ukraine?
Yes or no? And is that unusual?
Are they normally there?
Because I'd just love to see him deal with the question.
Because what if he says, no, we don't?
What if he said that?
What if he said, no, we don't have massive troops on the border?
How do you know it's true that we do?
How do you know it's true that we do?
I don't. I mean, I've believed it because it seems to be coming from multiple sources, but is it?
Do you think that there are multiple news sources that can all have visibility?
I don't think so.
No, I realize that there's satellite imagery, right?
But doesn't everything that we know come from our military?
Right? Am I wrong?
Do we know anything independently?
Can we use our private satellites to look down on them anytime we want?
So I guess I have a question.
If our news sources can see anything independently and know what it is, or are we just taking the word of our military?
At this point, you can't trust anything, can you?
I would have to think that it's too big of a claim to be false.
Although weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a pretty big claim.
James Webb knows, you say.
Well, ask him what's going on there.
All right. There's a Bob Saga update that is not too far from what I speculated.
So apparently his head injury was massive.
He looked like somebody had...
I guess his head was so cracked it was like somebody hit him with a bat or he had a fall from a large height or something.
But somehow he got in bed.
And do you remember my speculation?
Do you remember my speculation that he probably was not thinking right or he was so tired he could just barely get into bed?
And he was probably at that point...
You know, disoriented.
So at this point, and I said that before the doctors, right?
You heard me say that, that probably what happened was he was disoriented and didn't know who he was by the time he got in bed.
And it's starting to look like that's exactly what happened.
They're still ruling out drugs, although apparently he had Klonopin in him.
So he had Klonopin in him, but they're ruling out drugs.
I'm not sure how you could do that.
That would be a...
I don't know.
I think you'd have to speculate just because you didn't see a direct connection, but I don't know how you could rule it out as being a factor.
Certainly the drugs didn't kill him.
I think that's what they're saying. But what if you took drugs and they led to your, I don't know, whatever fall or situation possible?
And... I don't think we're going to find out there was any crime involved there, but I guess we'll keep watching.
There's a report of a mysterious hum around the world that affects 2% of the population.
Did you know that? How many of you hear a mysterious hum in your own home?
I was looking for one this morning, and then there was a news story on it.
I was literally trying to figure out why there's a new loud hum in my house.
I still haven't found it. I have a theory, but I haven't confirmed it yet.
Yeah, I don't think it's tinnitus because it's only in one room.
Yeah, in your garage.
Yeah, apparently it's a pretty big problem around the world.
Mysterious hums. Well, let's talk about the truckers.
My favorite thing about this story is how CNN covers how Fox covers the truckers.
So CNN is trying to paint the truckers as criminals and racists and ne'er-do-wells or whatever they're doing.
And Fox is covering them as patriots and freedom fighters.
So CNN has to insult Fox for how they cover the truckers.
So I have a question about our trade with Canada.
And I don't mean to insult our Canadian friends...
But those trucks have been blocking things for a while.
I'm not noticing anything missing.
Have you? Is there something mysterious about this?
Story number one, we can't get any goods across the border by trucks.
Story number two, except for the specific case of the automotive industry, which is having a problem, why do I not have any trouble getting anything else?
Is it...
Now, I know we have airplanes and rail travel and stuff like that, but aside from the car factories, is it just that we have less maple syrup and milk?
It's the milk and the maple syrup, right?
Because I haven't really noticed.
Beef? Lumber?
Oh, I guess building materials is pretty big.
Somebody says it's because I'm rich, but is it?
I know that inflation is killing everybody, so I'm aware of that.
Beer. Beer, you hoser.
All right, well, apparently the value of the trade from Canada is largely optional materials.
Am I wrong that everything we trade with Canada is optional?
Well, I'd like some delicious maple syrup on my pancakes, but I can eat a donut.
I would like to buy a new car, but my old car will run for a while.
I would love a Molson, but, you know, Heideken's fine.
I worry that the Canadian trade is not any essentials whatsoever.
And then I guess the gas and the oil would be coming in the pipeline, so they wouldn't be affected.
Yeah, there's hockey.
There's hockey. Yeah, so I don't want to understate the effect it had on the car companies, because that sounds pretty bad.
Joe Rogan broadcast the Majeed experience.
I don't know what that is. Lumber?
Yeah. End school mandates.
That looks like an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.
So... Is anything happening with mandates?
So apparently in California there's going to be some talk this coming week about how to turn this into an endemic, which it already is.
Joe Rogan is winning.
Kyle says, doesn't Scott know Canada is the number one trading partner with the U.S.? Kyle, that's my point.
Thank you for seeing the obvious, Kyle.
Yes. My point is, how in the world is it not affecting us in a way that, like, is really affecting my life?
Given that Canada is a massive trading partner, as is Mexico, wouldn't you expect any disruption in a massive trading partner to have an immediate effect?
Right? That's the whole point.
The whole point is, if trade is that big and it's disrupted, why don't I see it?
Yeah, and maybe two weeks is not enough.
But given the extent of it, of the interruption, you'd expect...
I would expect to see it by now.
Oh, there's another bridge an hour to the north, so all it is is an inconvenience of an hour.
Is that true? Or a couple hours?
Maybe. It seems like that bridge would be pretty...
When is the last time you saw Made in Canada on a label?
Ha! That's a good question.
But, you know, if you're buying lumber and gas, you're not going to see a label on it.
Why didn't COVID affect the protesters if COVID is so infectious?
Well, I don't know that it didn't.
ABC says California still wants mandates.
Well, we still have them, so somebody wants them.
And I do think that the public in California might be pro-mask.
By the way, where is the Super Bowl this year?
Is it in California? Who has the Super Bowl?
Is it us? L.A.? LA? Really?
This is how little I follow sports.
So I didn't know the Super Bowl was in LA until just this moment.
And the first thing that I think to myself is, didn't they pick the worst place of the entire country?
I guess it has to do with the size of the facility and stuff.
But I'm pretty sure they picked the very worst place in the entire country, didn't they?
And how long ago did they pick it?
Because if they picked it once we knew the pandemic was in place, It was selected years ago.
Yeah, it's part of a rotation. Somebody says, okay.
Well, that's bad timing, because that was the very worst place to put it.
Now, let me ask you something.
Are the Omicron Olympics still going on?
I'm not hearing anything.
I have not seen one event.
I've seen the headlines that I skip.
The Omicron Olympics completely disappeared.
Am I right? One TV and a bar of 20 TVs last night, yeah.
Yeah, we are very aggressively not caring about the Olympics, and I'm happy about that.
Sorry about the athletes, but, you know, you took a high-risk path if you're trying to be an Olympic athlete.
All right. Oh, there's a tunnel near the bridge as well.
Okay. Well, all these stories seem to be lacking context.
Again. All right.
So it seems that the news is mostly continuation news.
So there's just more stuff about the same stuff we've been talking about, so I don't want to, you know, belabor it too much.
Does anybody have a question for me that you've been holding on to?
Because I know that sometimes...
I create curiosity about either a point of view or something I said that was inconsistent, maybe.
Weight loss and COVID.
All right.
Gary says, Scott, the data changed.
I don't trust the data. I made Dilbert.
Too on the nose. So you're saying that I'm inconsistent about trusting the data or not.
But there's no inconsistency there.
I'm saying that the data all changed.
That doesn't say that you should trust it.
Doesn't mean it was right before or wrong before.
I think I'm consistent there.
Because nobody's doubting the data changed.
Did you find a Mustang?
Yes. Successfully.
It's quite awesome, too.
The cat's around.
The cat, unfortunately, is not doing too well.
When do you leave in California?
That's a wait and see.
Yeah, Boo, my cat, had an operation for polyps, but apparently the operation didn't work, so she's back to her original bad situation.
Who came up with February 1st?
So Greg and I sort of agreed on February 1st.
How were the water leaks? Just fixed another one.
Yeah, it was my 13th water leak of the year, I think.
Yeah.
I think I'm going to get rid of you just for being a jerk.
Hide user. You're gone.
Was the mystery UFO related to...
What? Alright.
Do I dream of water leaks?
I haven't. Oh, how's the book coming?
Yeah, I'm working on a new book.
It's coming along well.
Kat is still alive, but she's having problems.
Snickers is doing well.
Thoughts on Jesse Waters' new show?
I need to spend more time looking at it.
I've only seen some clips.
I'm sure it's awesome.
Is civil war a possibility now?
No, it's not. We're nowhere near civil war in the United States.
Not even close. Can you elaborate what I mean by the left is blind to human motivation?
Yeah. So the right consistently pursues strategies that understand that people are selfish and lazy.
And if you don't give them rewards and penalties...
For doing the right thing, they're not going to do the right thing on their own.
It's just that. And you can just find it in a million different ways.
Just pick anything that people differ on, and it's probably going to be there.
I watch CNN more than MSNBC, because MSNBC seems, like, literally crazy.
Where CNN just looks like they're lying, but it's obvious.
MSNBC, they look actually crazy.
Does anybody else have that opinion?
CNN doesn't look crazy to me because it's obvious they're lying.
Right? But you go to MSNBC and it's not obvious they're lying.
It looks like they believe what they're saying.
And that's a whole different level of messed up.
Now, of course I can't read their minds, so maybe they're all thinking exactly the same thing.
I can't tell. But it does look like the CNN people know they're lying.
It does look like that.
I don't know. But that, you know, it's just subjective.
Um... About the 2,000 mules.
What do my sources say about the 2,000 mules?
So remember we talked about that story or the allegation that there was a bunch of ballot stuffing and that there were specific mules that went to ballot box after ballot box.
Have you noticed that story just sort of died?
I guess it just couldn't get traction.
And the reason would be I can't imagine that the sources were shown.
Yeah, I think Dinesh D'Souza was behind some of that, or all of it.
I don't know. But it wasn't the whole question.
Everybody saw it and said, wow, if you can show sources for that, that's really good.
And I haven't heard any sources.
So I guess it might be a wait and see.
If there are sources, then that's a whole new ballgame.
If there are not, then it's just one of those things.
Yeah. Did the actual film come out yet?
Yeah, maybe that's what we're waiting for, is the film to come out.
The room with the hum doesn't have any difference in fluorescent lighting that it had before.
Are you sad today?
No. No.
I'm just not excited by anything today because the news wasn't that interesting.
Could the hum be a sonic weapon?
makes you wonder.
I don't think the hubs are damaging anybody though.
Best show ever?
I think so.
Yeah.
Germ or terrain theory?
I don't know about that.
Hmm. The DeSantis slaughter meter.
I saw there was a story about his wife talking about her cancer and about their future.
I didn't read the article. But is there anything that would keep DeSantis from running for president besides Trump?
I think it's just down to Trump, isn't it?
How old are the lights with the home?
Newish. Oh, the hum stopped.
Hold on. Yeah, it stopped.
I'm not that far away from a gravel mixing factory, and I think it's that, actually.
All right. Couldn't the blockchain be used for elections?
I think so, but I don't know.
Can Trump afford another rendezvous?
I don't think so. Elon lost 40 satellites in a solar storm?
Really? Wow.
Why are you not angry about no election integrity?
Are you kidding?
Has anybody not heard me go off time and time again about not having an auditable election?
That's like one of my top things I scream about.
From the most recent launch, I remember.
Wow, 40 satellites.
How vulnerable is civilization to a coronal mass ejection?
Wow.
Hmm. I don't know.
You know, I spend not a lot of time worrying about the sudden destruction of Earth from unlikely events because I don't really understand how we're here in the first place.
Doesn't it seem really weird that humans have been here in our modern form by 100,000 years or something?
And we all got lucky that the world is just right?
All right. Are we really in a simulation?
I think so.
I do think so.
I think by far it's the most likely explanation.
All right. I don't want to talk about future, like, disasters.
Alright, I'm going to go do something else.
And I hope all of you have changed your diets based on my hypnotist diet plan.
And I hope you're all getting happier and healthier and stronger.
