Episode 1680 Scott Adams: Killer Camels, Tiny Homes for Homeless, and Something Happening in Ukraine
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Escaped TN camel kills 2 people
SF tiny homes for homeless
Ukraine war weaponry, costs and outcome
Daily Mail story on Putin actions
Ukrainian biolabs controversy
Biden's insulting inflation lie, blaming Putin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 congratulations again.
You made it to Coffee with Scott Adams, and may I say that 100% of the people who have made it to Coffee with Scott Adams are glad they did.
And the other 25%, which would add up to 125%, of course, they're not happy at all.
But that's an imaginary 25%, so it doesn't matter at all.
All right. How would you like to take it up a notch?
Really? You would?
I thought so.
All you need is a cup of mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen, a junk 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.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
Except for you, because I don't think you could get much better.
Am I right? You're pretty awesome.
If I may say so, even with your eccentricities, your weird little quirks, may I say, weirdly, you're perfect.
And now, the simultaneous sip.
Go. You know, one of the most impactful things, I guess that's a clunky word, impactful, one of the things that affected me the most in my life was my first college roommate, Mike, or Michael.
And one of the things I loved about him is that he collected all the freaks, But also people who were not freaks.
So he would invite you to his room to hang out or party.
And it didn't matter if you were the coolest person in the dorm or literally the least coolest, you would be treated exactly the same.
And I don't know if I'd ever witnessed that before.
You know what I mean? Imagine at the age of 18...
Somebody who's just out of high school and is treating literally everybody exactly the same.
I'd never seen that before.
Honestly, I was quite affected by it.
And he had a number of other traits which were also admirably advanced for his young age.
And so he became sort of my role model.
I'm not sure if I ever told him that directly, but he became my role model because he just seemed to have things figured out, you know, like a higher level way of just dealing with the world.
And I always tried to be that person, meaning finding a way to release on all judgment, You still have to pick and choose who you spend time with doing what, right?
There's a practical element to that.
But I try not to judge.
And I feel like it's actually a skill you can develop.
Some of it might be natural.
I've often said that I was born non-judgmental.
I think there's something to that.
But you can also develop it, because there's always going to be some societal, judgmental level...
That gets, you know, layered onto you.
So that's my advice to you.
Here's the biggest story of the day.
CNN's reporting a camel escaped from a petting zoo in Tennessee and went on some kind of a rampage that killed two people.
So two people were killed by camels.
Now, the part that caught my attention is that these were two camels from a petting zoo.
Now, I don't really usually think of camels as killing machines.
Like when you think, oh, dangerous animal.
Is the camel the first one you think of?
I mean, they look like they could do some damage.
You know, if they give you a kick, they could take you out.
But I don't really think of camels as that dangerous.
But what kind of a hellscape of a petting zoo was this?
Am I wrong that petting zoos are oriented toward children?
And they had two deadly camels?
I ask you, if the camels were that deadly, what was everything else like?
Was everything in the petting zoo like a Stephen King novel?
Were they all like deadly animals?
You know, if you went to the petting zoo, would there be like severed limbs, human limbs and skulls everywhere?
This sounds like the scariest petting zoo in the entire world.
And not only that, but I worry about what will happen to the Marlboro cigarette brand, which, as you know, uses Joe Camel as its brand.
And I'm worried that stories about camels killing people could give cigarettes a bad name.
So that's sort of a bad side effect.
There's a story about San Francisco doing something that I consider very interesting.
They figured out, or some company did, how to build tiny little homes for the homeless.
So I guess they put them right out where the homeless already were, somewhere in the neighborhood where they were camping anyway.
And they're little one-room entities.
That don't have a bathroom.
There must be some kind of a centralized bathroom situation.
But they just have, I think, an outlet, a bed, a little heater, 60 square feet, like a little cubicle.
And apparently all the homeless people who were offered them snapped them up and said, yes, we will take that.
I guess the total cost, if you trick it out, is $30,000 per unit, which still seems high.
Does it really cost $30,000 for an insulated box with an outlet?
I'm not sure why it's that high.
But here's what I think.
First of all, I think this might work because one of the reasons that the homeless don't want homes is that they can't do their drugs and do whatever else they're doing.
But as far as I know, these little homes don't come up with any restrictions.
So presumably they could just do their drugs inside these little houses.
So from the perspective of the people on the streets, it makes them probably safer and more comfortable.
But here's what I think is the future.
I think we're entering a future where there will be more and more people who simply can't work for one reason or another.
They just can't. They're too anxious.
For some reason, anxiety is crippling people.
Too depressed. Too unhealthy.
Too whatever. Or unemployable.
Just they don't have any skills. So I feel as if the only way the world will survive...
Is with super cheap housing that's still actually kind of nice to live because they organize it around a community where you have lots of interaction with your neighbors.
Let's say you don't hate your neighbors.
But I feel like everything is going to go that way.
Super cheap. Now, when you say boo...
Keep in mind, I'm not saying that you personally would be in one of these tiny homes.
I'm saying that people who don't have a better option, I think it's going to be a trend.
These little $30,000 homes.
I don't love the shared bathroom part, but, you know, what do you want for $30,000?
All right, so I'm going to keep an eye on that.
So there's a rumor on the Internet that I don't think is true, but maybe it will be true, that Trump agreed to go on Joe Rogan.
You know, the Internet is saying that, but I don't believe that's actually a confirmed thing.
So until I see it from some larger entity, I'm not going to believe it.
But I'd be surprised if he doesn't, wouldn't you?
But, in a related news, apparently Spotify lost a bunch of subscribers.
They had a loss of 1.5 million paying subscribers in the first quarter of 2022.
But they said that Joe Rogan was not the reason for that.
You know, the pushback about Joe Rogan's content.
They're saying that's not the reason they lost those subscribers.
They're saying it's because they cancelled their premium service in Russia.
Russia is 1% of their revenue.
Does that track with you?
Do you think that it wasn't the Joe Rogan situation?
It was really that that 1% of business in Russia they cancelled?
I don't know. It depends if 1.5 million paying subscribers is 1% of their total revenue.
Somebody go research that while we're doing this.
Because it might be.
Right? Right? Oh, somebody just give me the number of total Spotify subscribers.
I'll bet we'll have that in about 30 seconds.
Somebody's going to Google that for me.
Total number of Spotify subscribers, unless it's a secret.
Maybe they don't tell you that number.
But could they have a million or 100 million subscribers?
Is that possible? What would you guess would be the number of Spotify subscribers?
Because maybe it is Russia.
I mean, if they have 100 million, I don't know if they do, but...
That's interesting.
I thought you'd tell me the number by now.
Somebody says 180 million.
Is that real? Oh, two people are saying it.
So it looks like you've looked it up and they've got 180...
Yeah. So if they had 180 million subscribers and they got rid of 1% of it, they would lose about 1.5 million.
Actually, it tracks. I was going to call this fake news, but if it's true that Russia was 1% and they dropped that 1%, it's a pretty good story.
It tracks with the numbers.
Well, let's talk about Ukraine and their high-tech weaponry.
I learned a few things about their high-tech weaponry.
I may get some of this wrong, so look to the comments to correct me if I get any of this wrong.
So here's what we know about these anti-tank weapons.
First of all, how many Russian tanks were deployed in December?
I didn't see a more current number, but I saw there were 1,200 Russian tanks That were deployed to attack in December.
So let's take that as just a starting number, 1,200 Russian tanks.
If there are 1,200 Russian tanks, how many javelins and other anti-tank weapons have been provided to the Ukrainians by NATO and whoever else is helping them?
And the answer is NATO has pushed over 17,000 anti-tank weapons.
So there are 1,200 tanks...
And there are 10 times that number, more than 10 times that number, of anti-tank missiles.
More than 10 times.
Now, of course, that doesn't mean the tanks and the missiles are in the right place, you know, so there's always going to be a mismatch of location.
So that takes the number of, you know, anti-tank missiles down a bit.
But this is a...
This is a...
Not 10 times, what am I saying?
But 1,200 Russian tanks and 17,000 missiles.
So here's the thing.
How does Russia win this war on the ground?
Is that even possible?
Can somebody answer this question?
Can you occupy or even conquer a country on the ground without tanks?
Because aren't they going to be without tanks pretty soon?
Now, I realize that artillery can just flatten an area.
But to actually control the area, like move in and hold that ground, don't you need tanks?
I don't think they're going to have any tanks.
I believe they'll have no tanks.
All right, here's some other things.
What would it cost for 17,000 anti-tank weapons?
Well, if a Javelin missile is 80,000 per missile, But, you know, there's more expense for the, I guess there's a control unit, and some part of this is reusable, is disposable, and some part isn't.
So, but let's just take that number.
Take $80,000 per missile, so that's a low number, it would be higher, and multiply by $17,000 that were provided, and it's about $1.4 billion.
That's affordable, isn't it?
I feel like the world can afford $1.4 billion for anti-tank weapons.
Each of these weigh 50 pounds.
So one soldier can carry one, but it'd be better if you had a little team of them carrying the extra parts of it and stuff.
And here's how these work.
This is just the javelins.
Apparently there are other anti-tank missiles there, but just the javelins...
So the javelins have apparently two parts.
There's this big control unit that looks like a giant pair of binoculars.
Like, you know, it's the size of a, I don't know, it's bigger than a toaster.
It's like the size of a microwave.
It's between a microwave and a toaster.
And it's this big thing that has a screen, and it's got infrared, so you can locate from a great distance even at night.
Now apparently, I just saw this on Fox News, one of the experts was saying that you could take that unit, separate it from the missile-firing part of the rocket, and it's really, really handy for seeing the enemy at a distance and they can't see you.
So apparently the Ukrainians have a pretty big advantage, not just from the Javelin missile, but separately from taking the control unit with them whenever they need to see you and you can't see them, operationally.
If you can operate at night, it's just a big advantage.
So there's that. So the way this thing works is, I guess you use the control unit to spot your target, and then it detects a heat signature, I guess, and then it locks on, and then it actually shoots toward the target,
but then it goes up in the air, high, so that when it comes down onto the target that it locked onto, and by the way, this is fire and forget, after the rocket's launched, The people who launch it just back up and leave so that the launch site can't be attacked.
And it comes down on top of a tank because that's the weakest armor, apparently.
Now, not only that...
But some of the tanks have this, like, exploding exterior, so that if they get hit by something, it explodes outwards and sort of semi-protects the interior.
But these javelins are so smart that they have two charges.
One charge explodes the protective charges, and the other charge destroys the tank.
So this is really sophisticated stuff.
And I'm not sure that they miss that often.
Does anybody know how often a javelin misses once it's locked on a target?
I feel like the answer is rarely, right?
So did you see the video of there was a Russian tank column or armored column, I guess, And you saw a video from a small drone that the Ukrainians must operate, and it showed some kind of an anti-tank weapon taking out a tank, and then everybody's running for their lives around the area.
So there were two lessons there.
One is that...
One is that the...
The small drones are being used by the Ukrainians to spot.
So I guess the Ukrainians have pretty good eyes on stuff with these small drones.
And imagine you're a poorly trained Russian conscript, and you're not in a battle, and you've never been in one, but you're in this long line of stuff, and days and days are going by, and every day you watch...
One or more of the vehicles near you blow up.
What would that do to your head?
There's nobody you can shoot at.
You're literally just...
Not literally, but you're sitting ducks, and you're just watching...
You're getting picked off one by one with these javelins, I assume.
What would that do to your fighting spirit?
I mean, that would be really, really mentally destructive.
So, there are...
Two ways to look at this war.
One is that Russia has immense assets and they're all getting there to squeeze the cities and lay siege.
Their artillery is lining up to just pound them into submission.
And it looks like Russia would just win if it wants to.
So that's one point of view. The other point of view is, yeah, it's a fog of war.
We have no idea what's happening there.
Here's what I think. I think that Russia can't conquer and hold Ukraine when there are that many anti-tank weapons in country.
Because I don't think they can do it without tanks, and I don't think that they can have tanks.
So, I mean, I think it's that simple.
You can't do it without tanks, and goodbye tanks, because there are enough missiles to take them all out.
Now, I think they can control the sky, they can do artillery forever.
Now, here's my second question.
Is artillery easily targeted by...
I mean, you'd have to find it first.
But is it easily targeted by the same types of missiles?
Can you use an anti-tank weapon on artillery?
I see some yeses.
I would think so, right?
It would have a heat signature?
So I would think so.
Anything with a heat signature, right?
Yeah. Artillery is not on the front lines.
Right.
But you would have people hunting for it behind the front lights.
Okay.
So here's where I think things are going to go.
I think that the Ukrainians are actually going to destroy the Russian army, or enough of it, That Russia is going to have a real big trouble.
Now, here's a story that's coming out of...
I saw this in the Daily Mail from the UK. So the story is that Putin's firing his people, right?
That he's placed the head of his FSB, that's their foreign intelligence branch, the head of his foreign intelligence under house arrest because, allegedly, Putin is furious as security services...
For failing to warn him that Ukraine could fiercely resist invasion.
Now, put your skeptical hat on and tell me if you think this story sounds like a true story or one that is suspiciously exactly like a fake story would sound.
All right? So, sure, Putin has put under house arrest his own head of intelligence...
Okay. And also that guy's deputy.
Okay. And he's said to have blamed his intelligence agencies for the slow pace of the war.
Maybe. And he's said to...
Let's see...
Apparently the intel people allegedly told Putin that Ukraine was weak, riddled with neo-Nazi groups and would give up easily, and that he was just lying.
But also the head of security allegedly embezzled funds that were meant for the undercover or subversive stuff in Ukraine.
And then there's also stories about generals being fired, right?
Now, doesn't that sound exactly like a story...
That anti-Russia propaganda would put out.
Oh, Russia is doing so poorly that even his generals are quitting and he's arresting his head of intelligence for a big screw-up.
Now, I thought this sounded suspicious because it sounded exactly like what pundits were guessing.
Do you remember before we heard this story, the pundits were saying...
That Putin had been misinformed that it would be easy to go in and he would be hailed as a hero.
Do you remember all the pundits said that?
Oh, he misjudged because he thought he would be hailed as a hero?
Is it a coincidence that we get the real inside scoop?
It matches exactly what the pundits have already tested out in the market and the market accepted?
I feel like this was already market-tested, if you know what I mean.
But here's the real tell.
The story at the end is just like a throwaway at the end of the article.
It goes on to say, basically as an explanation for why Russia's intelligence service is so terrible, that the intelligence services, they do their hiring from legacy, meaning the children of people who were in intelligence agencies before.
So the allegation in this story is that Russia hires basically idiots for its intelligence service, and then it points out that the CIA recruits almost exclusively from Ivy League schools.
So, do you think that a story about Putin firing all of his top generals and people and putting them in house arrest, and at the same time saying that Russia's intelligence agencies are full of dolts, but the CIA only hires geniuses, who do you think put that story in the news?
Do you think it's the people who look like geniuses in the story?
Maybe. Maybe. Maybe it's the people who told the story that made them look like geniuses.
I'm just saying, if I were going to guess, wild guess, who would plant a story like that in the media, it would be somebody who wanted to look like a genius.
Take it from me. All right.
And then the way they...
the credibility for the story is that it comes from a Russian author who is known to have sources in the intelligence agencies in Russia.
Do you know how intelligence agencies launder their fake news?
They go to an author or a journalist and they say, look, we need you to say this.
And then they tell them it's true.
And then the author says it, and then they say, look, well, this author says it's true, with his sources.
Do you know what his sources probably were?
Probably the CIA. Probably the CIA gave him the information and said, this comes from inside the Kremlin.
This guy does interviews and says, I have secret information from inside the Kremlin.
I can't tell you where it came from.
And then the news reports that it came from an author.
Doesn't this look exactly like a planted story?
Doesn't mean it is, right?
So, I mean, I couldn't bet my life on it.
But if you understand what a planted story looks like, it looks exactly like this.
Exactly. But let's say it's true.
LAUGHTER This is the diabolical part about all this.
You can know that the news is fake, and you still treat it like it's true.
I don't know. I guess people can do that.
So let's do that. Let's treat it like it's true.
If it's true that the Ukrainians have all those anti-tank weapons, if it's true that you can't really conquer a place without tanks, especially a well-armed place, you can't conquer them without tanks.
I don't think you can. The cities especially.
And if it's true that Putin is firing his generals because everything's a mess, there is a real possibility that Ukraine just wins the war outright.
Is anybody talking about that yet?
All the smart people are saying, okay, the weight of military might is all on Russia's side, 10 to 1.
It's just a matter of time.
It's just numbers. There's nothing you can do about it.
But there is something you can do about it if you can take out all of their tanks.
So I guess I will base my prediction on this one factor.
So it's a one-factor prediction.
That they have enough anti-tank weapons...
To take out all of their tanks and similar heavy equipment.
All of them. And that once those are gone, their military will be just in disarray and they can just be picked off or neutralized.
They just won't be an effective fighting force.
I have a feeling you're going to see mass surrenders.
Like entire divisions or whatever they're called over there.
I feel like you're going to see mass surrenders.
What do you think? Now, somebody's saying the point was to displace 2 million people.
And maybe it was. But I don't think that worked exactly the way Russia expected.
Because once the women and children were out of there, and it's just the men, word has it the Ukrainian men can put up quite a fight.
And perhaps they are.
Sounds like they are. I don't believe anything coming out of the war zone, but...
Sounds sort of like they are.
Alright. China and Russia are both collaborating to say that there are U.S.-funded biolabs, you know, weapons labs or something in Ukraine.
The official U.S. story is that there are biolabs, but not for the purpose of weapons.
Oh, no. No, no, no, no, not for weapons, but rather for valuable research in these various countries to help identify and find treatments for local pathogens.
Totally plausible story.
I don't know, is it?
Is that plausible?
I think it is.
I don't know if it's true.
But it feels plausible that they...
But would we be funding, of all things that we could fund...
We'd have this great interest in local pathogens in Ukraine.
Not even pathogens that are necessarily going to affect us.
We care that much?
We're funding them in Ukraine?
There's something sketchy about the whole story, wouldn't you say?
Let's just say that whatever the truth of this story is, I don't think we've heard it.
I don't think China and Russia are telling us the truth.
But I definitely don't believe our team.
Do you? Is there anybody who thinks that the United States is telling the truth about these labs?
Probably nobody thinks that, right?
So what can we really say about any of this?
Nothing. Because now we have China, Russia, and the United States commenting on these labs, and those are the three least credible sources that are talking about this topic.
All right. And then, of course, the U.S. is warning Biden administration, saying that Russians might use these what they would call fake bioweapons research places as a pretense for a biological attack and then claim it was actually the Ukrainians, not them. What do you think?
Do you think Russia is going to claim that the Ukrainians mounted a biological attack on Russia or on the Russians in the military?
That does feel like standard Russian play, right?
So here's the great irony.
What if it's true that Putin's generals and his advisors, his top experts, what if it is true that he's firing them and arresting them?
Might be true.
But if that is true, things could be over quickly, you know?
Something could happen pretty quickly.
The EU Commission says they're going to try to wean off Russia oil and gas by 2027.
Does anybody believe that?
Do you believe that Europe can wean itself off of gas by 2027?
Now that's three years earlier than they had planned, I guess, but I'm surprised they ever planned it.
I feel like no. Because you wouldn't even be able to build enough tankers to transport it by then, right?
You couldn't build a pipeline in five years, could you?
You couldn't build enough tankers in five years.
I don't know, it seems aggressive to me, but worth a try.
All right, the most surprising video that I thought might have been a fake...
And I'm still not completely sure it's true because it's so shocking.
Trevor Noah of The Daily Show, you know him not to be a friend of Trump, right?
He's a constant, continuous critic of Trump.
But he did this rant in which he was full-throatedly saying, not as a joke, not as a joke, at least I didn't take it that way, that Trump would have...
Succeeded where Biden failed in at least getting Saudi Arabia to return his phone call.
Because apparently Saudi Arabia basically didn't take Biden's call or something like that.
And Trevor just went off on it and said, there's no way they wouldn't take Trump's call because Trump is too unpredictable.
You don't know what he would do if you don't take his call.
But it might be ugly. But you do know that Biden probably isn't going to go hard on Saudi Arabia for not taking his call because he's too polite.
And I think this is just more of the Trump looks better every day than he's out of office effect.
Now, I don't know if Trevor Noah is going to continue eating this red pill, but it's a pretty notable defection from the Democrats are all good and Republicans are all bad point of view.
So, we'll see.
And Biden is calling the inflation basically Putin gas hikes and Putin inflation.
You know, I can tolerate...
Quite a bit of lying from my government.
Wouldn't you agree? Because you're just so used to it.
And usually you can tell exactly when they're lying.
So you're like, well, it's not like a real lie, because I can tell they're lying.
But there's something about this that's just insulting.
It's just insulting to say that inflation was caused by Putin.
I guess people will believe it, maybe the Democrats, but it's such a bad lie that I just feel insulted that you can't try a little harder to lie to me in a more, let's say, intellectually satisfying way.
Now, his argument, I guess, is that the spending...
Which, of course, you know, the massive deficit spending.
Now, in theory, that should cause a bunch of inflation.
And it looks like it was starting.
But I think his argument might be that that hasn't kicked in yet, or something.
Is that his argument?
That it's just a timing thing, and that, you know, the...
Or is it just a stupid argument?
To me, it just looks like it's probably a stupid argument, but he knows the public is stupid, so half of them will buy it and that's all he needs.
Could be.
It's a stupid citizen strategy.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is pretty much all I wanted to say.
Okay.
Isn't it weird to you that when there's a story, yeah, 11 assassination attempts, yeah, everything that comes out that's pro-Ukraine, you know, Zelensky escapes 11 assassination attempts.
How much of that is real?
Yeah. I would buy two.
Two makes sense.
But 11? I don't know.
11? Seems unlikely.
Um... 80% of all money printed was printed in the last 22 months, somebody says.
I wonder if that's true. Saudi Arabia hates the Iran deal, yes.
You said SA, I thought that was me.
I thought Scott Adams hates the Iran deal?
I didn't even know I had an opinion.
Yeah, somebody says there's only propaganda in time of war, and I think that's right.
That basically 100% of what you hear about the war is...
You should assume it's propaganda.
Oh, not printed, but created.
Okay. Ukraine is losing big in Donbass.
Yeah, I think Ukraine's going to not have any luck in the South.
But I think Kiev is going to stand.
We'll see. All right.
YouTube, thank you for joining.
And if you were not aware, if you were on the locals platform, you would get a little extra of me before and after almost every show.
And as well as micro-lessons, which I swear I'm going to start adding some more.
We were 200 micro-lessons so far.
Oh, thank you, John.
I appreciate that. I'm not sure if I'm making the world better every day, but I think every now and then I do something useful.
Great low-energy show.
Do I seem low-energy?
Today wasn't the day I wanted to get anybody worked up about anything.
Yes, I was up late.
Can we chat about Project Veritas?
Yes. Oh, and if you're on YouTube, it would help me if you subscribe.
And that would be great.
I do seem a little off.
Yeah, I think I started at 3 a.m.
today. So this is already the afternoon for me.
Germans surrounded Warsaw?
Okay. Yeah, we've got a lot of precedents.
I'm not sure that there are any precedents that make sense.
So any military precedent before there were unlimited anti-tank weapons doesn't seem relevant.
Do we agree on that?
That any war precedent prior to drones and anti-tank weapons I don't think applies.
And if you look at Afghanistan, You know, I think everything was different about that.
