Episode 1746 Scott Adams: Headlines and Coffee. UFOs And Ukraine. More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Elon Musk amusing antics
Project Veritas and Twitter senior engineer
Russian Generals jaw dropping truth
The weakest Presidential administration
The abortion debate
Misinterpreting my mask and vaxx comments
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
I know I will be. Sleeping is pretty hard on here.
Now, how about the simultaneous sip?
Anybody? Anybody?
All you need is a paper cup and a vessel of any kind.
Fill me with your favorite liquid, because I like coffee, and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine for the day thing makes everything better.
It's better, it's called the "Sungle Dini" set, go.
Ah, yeah, that's better.
And Monica, go take care of yourself.
Don't wait for this.
So, yeah, the baby birds outside the sound like screaming babies is quite a big thing.
And we're going to talk about the news.
I just started looking at it, but it's very newsy today.
So, Congress is holding a, or did, a presentation about UFOs, which they haven't done since the 60s.
What do you think? Do you think UFOs are real or just something that's a visual sighting but there's nothing real there?
What do you think? How many say UFOs are real?
Now real could be either aliens or some other entity.
But are they actually ships?
What do you think? I'm gonna say strong no.
Strong no. For me.
And here's why.
Apparently Adam Schiff was involved in this congressional UFO thing.
I was sort of leaning pro-UFO until I saw that Adam Schiff might think they're real.
And then I started thinking, I think this is a setup.
There's a little foreshadowing going on here.
Because it's possible that Russia will be, let's say, taken out of the 2024 election in America.
Because the war might just occupy them.
Who knows if Putin will even be there.
So they need a new Russia.
Now, the thing Russia had going for it is that you could blame them of bad stuff, and even when they said, no, we didn't do it, you wouldn't believe them and you couldn't check.
You see where I'm going?
Blaming Russia, like the Russia collusion hoax, you could blame Russia and people would think, yeah, Russia would do something like that.
But they're denying it.
But they lie.
So maybe they did.
It's sort of the perfect, you know, the entity to blame.
There's only one better.
If Russia isn't available for the Democrats to blame, UFOs.
Yeah, do you think that we're going to have a UFOs affect the voting machines problem in 2024?
Okay, not really, but it's funny to think about it.
You put Adam Schiff on the UFOs, Here's my argument.
I don't care how many sensors see a UFO. I don't care how many eyewitnesses.
If you can't get a clear picture, there's no UFO. No, if your only picture is a smudge, there's no UFO. There's another one that's hilariously, quite obviously, some kind of a fast-forward button on an interface that's just a perfect triangle and it's lit up.
I'm looking at it and I think, that's not a UFO, that's clearly a component from an American user interface.
It's just a triangle that's glowing.
I'm pretty sure I have glowing triangles on several of my devices.
It's called Fast Forward.
Yeah, it seems like all these cameras would get a better picture than this much.
Well, most of the news is about Elon Musk today.
He's like the new Trump in terms of drawing all of our attention.
So here are some of the things that Elon Musk did just yesterday.
So this is one day of Elon Musk.
He gave some kind of interview in a podcast and he said although he's voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, Musk has, he slammed the Democratic Party and Biden in particular and he actually called Biden, basically he was saying that Biden was sort of an empty suit.
And he said, quote, the real president is whoever controls the teleprompter, the Tesla CEO said.
The path to power is the path to the teleprompter.
And he, quote, I do want someone to accidentally lean on the teleprompter.
It's going to be like Anchorman.
You know the movie, Anchorman?
The CEO added, referencing the 2004 film, the Ron Burgundy movie.
Now, How awesome is that, that Elon Musk is just dumping on the president?
But he says he's, you know, he's voted overwhelmingly Democrat.
He is, however, not Republican.
He wants you to know that he's a moderate.
He's neither too Republican nor too Democrat.
And he also said that that might be the perfect situation for buying Twitter.
Because he's neither too left nor too right.
How many of you saw the Project Veritas, the newest film of Twitter employees?
There's a brand new one yesterday.
How many of you saw that?
You know...
I didn't think that Project Veritas exactly had the limits on Twitter with their prior stuff.
The prior stuff was good, and it definitely raised lots of questions, but this was just a whole new level.
Now, somebody who's seen it, do a fact check on me in the comments and make sure that I'm characterizing this correctly, because it's simple and confusing at the same time.
I believe that the employee who was talking, a Twitter employee who was on the hidden camera, Project Veritas, said that they do consciously censor or suppress the Republican or the right.
And he said that the reason that they do that intentionally is the following.
If they don't suppress the right, The people on the left will complain like crazy.
And it'll be a problem.
They'll leave the platform. But if you suppress...
So if you suppress the right, the left will stay on the platform.
If you suppress the left, the left will leave the platform.
So they're saying that the right can take a punch.
So that their idea of fairness Is to double punish the people who are already getting punished.
Is that right? They're going to double punish the people who are already punished or something like that?
Like, it absolutely didn't make sense because it all just boiled down to we're biased against the right.
But the reasoning that they gave was sort of a business reason that Doesn't feel too good when you try to say it in your own mouth.
You're like, okay, I sort of understood that.
Kind of. Not really. What?
And you can tell that muddy thinking is a real tell.
That they can't even explain it in any way that can be justified, basically.
It's just pure bias.
So, that happened.
Now, imagine that happening and Twitter's right in the middle of this acquisition.
Now, you may know that Elon Musk also questioned the number of bots.
Now, I think the CEO of Twitter refers to it as spam, as opposed to, so they're bots and they're spam, and I don't know if those are exactly the same category, but in both cases, they're things that shouldn't be on the platform.
And if advertisers are paying for the number of users who are seeing their content, you have to subtract out, you know, fake accounts, because those don't count.
So I guess Twitter is claiming 5%, or under 5%, and they've got a whole system, and they, you know, they remove a zillion accounts a day, so they're working really hard to reduce them, and they say they've succeeded to under 5%.
Elon has challenged them in public by saying he thinks it's at least 20%.
Now, what's happening?
So, Twitter says 5%, Elon Musk is trying to buy the company, and he says 20%.
What's happening?
They're negotiating.
And Elon Musk is negotiating in public.
I saw some people, I'll get into a further story about this, Some upstanding citizens, some blue-check people, saying that, oh, don't do this.
You know, don't be talking like this in public, because he had an exchange with the Twitter CEO on Twitter.
And they felt it was, like, sort of icky and seamless.
Not seamless, but it was just not a good look.
To which I said, it's a really good rule.
To not take your business laundry out and show it to everybody, right?
That's a good rule. So you can see where they're coming from.
There is one exception.
The one exception to the don't drag your business laundry in front of everybody would be, what's the one exception?
The one exception.
Just one. One exception.
If you can pull it off.
That's it. You know, I know you're going to say if it's negotiating or if it's Elon Musk.
Those are good answers. But I'm going to say the only time you should do that is if you can pull it off.
Now, how many people could pull that off?
Trump, right?
Trump could pull it off. Elon Musk, right?
He could pull it off. But they're not the only ones.
You know, Jeff Bezos could pull it off.
Mark Cuban could pull it off.
You know, there are a lot of people I saw that comment.
So I'm completely in favor of this, because it is full transparency, which is exactly what Musk said he was bringing to Twitter.
Why is it that you like, if you do, why is it that you like Musk buying Twitter?
Transparency. That's what you want.
You just want to find out what's in there.
What are they doing to you?
And the Elon Musk is taking his transparency to the public.
To which I say, good job.
That's exactly what I wanted.
I wanted to see this in public.
And the negotiation, I think, is solid.
So, here's where it gets fun.
It's sort of the way he's negotiating, too, that makes it extra spicy.
So, the Twitter CEO, I guess he felt he needed to do a long thread explaining why it is that they can't easily tell you how many people are spam or bots.
And so he goes through this long thread.
I think there might have been 20 tweets or something like that.
Very long. Very detailed.
And the essence of the tweet was that it takes a combination of external information and proprietary internal information.
You have to put them together to find out how many bots and spam you have.
And unfortunately, they love to show people how they do it, but the internal stuff is proprietary and they can't show you.
So you can see some of the external stuff, but not the internal stuff, so you wouldn't really be able to determine anything they can't show you either.
What was Elon Musk's comment to a 20-thread tweet from the CEO of Twitter?
Remember, Twitter's company is buying, so he's also buying the CEO, in a way, right?
If he stays there. I doubt he will.
But if he does, he's buying that CEO. And after the CEO gives a 20 or so tweet thread about all the complicated reasons that they can't show you the data, Elon Musk retweets a turd.
A turd. That's it.
Now, could that be more perfect?
Yes. Yes, it could.
No, that wasn't the end.
He retweets a turd to a 20 tweet thread of bullshit from the CEO of Twitter, which every single person who read it knew was bullshit.
100% of everybody who read that said, well, that's not true.
I mean, I'm no expert on technology, but even I know that's not true.
And here's what Elon followed up with his turd.
After the CEO said, we cannot show you for sure how we know how many people are real followers, Elon Musk, who is buying Twitter, said this.
If you can't confirm how many...
I'm paraphrasing. If you can't confirm how many users you really have, how do your advertisers know what they're buying?
Boom. I don't think I've ever seen a CEO dissect it like that.
I mean, he was just disemboweled right in public.
I mean, Musk just slid him from, you know, from neck to belly button and just removed his bowels and threw it on the internet.
I've never seen anybody be destroyed that hard.
And I don't think he even answered.
Because what exactly is the answer to that?
Nothing. There is no fucking answer to that.
If you can't confirm to your advertisers how many people are watching, you don't have a business.
So apparently their business is based on literally bullshit.
Now, what is all of this?
What would you call all of that exchange?
Negotiating. It's negotiating.
He's just doing it in public.
And he's doing it in a funny way.
Honestly, it's just hilarious.
Do you know why it's funny?
Because it's just true.
And it's simple. Do you know what is the trick to writing a good comic strip?
Or a good joke? Well, there are a few elements you have to get right to make a joke work.
But the most basic part is, it has to be simple, and it has to come across as true, or true in a funny way.
And he does that sort of reflexively.
So the reason that a lot of what Musk does is funny is because it's simple and true, and you don't expect either one.
Nobody expects simple, and nobody expects true, but if you give them both of you, it makes you laugh.
Because you're like, ah, that's simple and true.
So the turd was just perfect.
There was nothing else to say that was better than that.
All right. Musk has also said that, you know, he says the reality is that Twitter at this point has a very far left bias.
And that he said, quote, I would trust myself as a moderate and neither Republican or Democrat.
So he's putting himself out there as having enough of a history of being on both sides.
He said he loved Obama.
Not loved him, but he thought Obama was solid.
And that Biden is beholden to the unions.
That feels about right, doesn't it?
He's definitely beholden to the school unions, or the teachers unions.
So I think that sounds about right.
Again, that would be Elon Musk saying something that's both simple and true.
That Biden is just beholden to the unions and so therefore he's not effective.
That's it. Alright.
Now here's the part where I always tell you, have I ever mentioned that I get dragged into the headlines a lot?
I've told you that, right?
In the weirdest possible ways, I'm just minding my own business, the next thing I'm in some kind of story, national story, I'm like, what?
Or I'll be reading an article about the news and suddenly it'll be about me.
It's the weirdest damn thing.
Well, this whole story I told you about Elon Musk tweeting at the CEO of Twitter, Somebody printed a Dilber comic in the middle of that exchange.
It was a Dilber comic in which Dilber was telling his boss, roughly speaking, if I can paraphrase myself, Dilbert was saying that the data is all useless because he can tweak the data with small changes of assumptions and it completely changes the results.
So since the data is completely dependent on his assumptions, which are just guesses, the data can't be used for anything and it's worthless.
And the boss replies, don't mention any of that stuff when you show it to the board.
Now, Elon actually responded to that with a laughing happy face.
So suddenly I'm in the middle of that.
And then somebody else printed a Dilbert comic from a photograph of Elon Musk's office.
I guess he had a Dilbert comic on the wall.
So suddenly—oh, there's the actual comic somebody's putting on the locals.
Over on Locals, you can paste images into the comments.
And I've got to tell you, the comments are way more interesting, because they've got memes, and when I talk about something, somebody will show everybody else.
So as I'm talking, it's like they're seeing a slideshow from the other users of what it is I'm talking about.
It's a much better experience.
That's a subscription service called Locals.
You can find me there.
Alright, let's talk about something else.
So, there he is.
I just tweeted before I got on.
I think David Boxenhorn saw this on Twitter.
And there's a translated speech of a Russian general, I believe.
On some kind of a news program in Russia who is giving the Russian public a dose of truth that I don't think anybody was ready for.
And you have to watch the whole thing.
Almost everything he says is jaw-dropping because he's just giving the Russian people a military truth that they've never heard before.
And among the things he says are that That the Ukrainians are about to get a massive amount of weapons and that they will have one million armed fighters in Ukraine fairly soon.
Now, I don't know what soon means in this context, but this general clearly thought that soon was soon enough, meaning that the war would still be going on and those million people would be armed.
Now, the pushback is, well, these are, you know, volunteers and they'd be like conscripts.
So they wouldn't be very effective or they wouldn't be very professional.
And here's the thing that just blew my mind.
The general said, they're basically, he said, they're fighting for their home country.
That's as professional as you can get, basically.
I had something on my mouth.
I can't tell if that was a comment about my content or my actual look.
So, his statement is that the Ukrainians are about to get a massive amount of weapons, and it's guaranteed because it's already in process, and that modern weaponry will hit these Ukrainians who are fighting for their homeland.
And basically, he's telling the Russian public that Ukraine is going to win this thing.
Now, he didn't say that exactly, but he said it.
He basically said Ukraine's gonna win.
And he said you can't beat them because they're gonna be armed to the teeth, there's gonna be a million of them, and they're fighting for their homeland, and you can't beat them.
Basically. You have to hear it.
It's jaw-dropping. Now, I don't know if that guy will be alive tomorrow.
Because he was so honest about what's going on there.
I don't know. I don't know how he can survive that, honestly.
I mean, I think he'll be in jail by tomorrow.
But at the same time, CNN is, and I think Fox News too, is reporting that the Ukrainians are moving out of Mariupol.
They're surrendering there.
And their steel plant, the ones who were trapped there, are in bad shape.
So it does look like Russia is making some, you know, mopping up their victory there.
And there's shelling in the West.
So if you were to read the headlines today, it would look like Russia's winning.
Just based on the very little stuff that we're hearing, it looks like Russia's winning.
Then you hear this Russian general on Russian TV saying, there's no way we can beat that, basically.
There's no way we can beat them.
It's just amazing.
So who knows if that's true.
So I looked at what Fox is covering versus what CNN is covering.
And every now and then the news will be similar.
Have you noticed that?
The news will be similar on CNN and on Fox News.
Not today. It's like there are two different worlds that are being reported on.
Over on CNN the only things that matter are the Buffalo mass shooting.
Huh, why is that so important?
Oh, could it be because it's a white supremacist?
And it fits into their Republicans or a white supremacist narrative?
Yes, that's why. So I think the top ten stories are all about the Buffalo shooting.
How many of the top ten stories on Fox News are about the Buffalo shooting?
I don't think any.
So there's an entirely different news world on CNN today.
Completely different. Fox News has the UFO story.
The rest of CNN is about abortion law.
So the two topics that would be best for Democrats to win elections would be the mass shooting, because they don't have much.
They don't have accomplishments to work on.
So they have to work on Republican problems.
Right? They have no accomplishments.
They have to focus on criticizing Republicans.
Now, has there ever been a sitting administration?
This will blow your mind, by the way.
Here's another thought that I would expect to be on the mainstream media pretty soon.
Have you ever seen an incumbent running for office without talking about accomplishments and only talking about how the other team is bad and you better elect us so that you don't get that bad stuff?
And the argument is...
You asshole, we elected you, and we still got a white supremacist blowing up a grocery store with guns.
Right? Isn't the argument for the incumbent, I've done a good job, look at my accomplishments, wouldn't you like more of these?
That's how it's supposed to work, right?
And then the one who's challenging doesn't have any accomplishments, so the challenger has to simply criticize.
That's always the way it is, right?
I'm not wrong about that.
You should have the challenger should be a criticizer, the incumbent should be an accomplishment person, but because Biden has no accomplishments, CNN is trying to give them a boost by talking only about the shooting, which they would say is a gun control problem, so that's their narrative against the Republicans, and the abortion law thing, which is just another narrative against the Republicans.
Both of these are Democrat failures, aren't they?
Because the Democrats wanted to keep abortion the way it was, but it's not.
So that's a Democrat failure, even though there was nothing they could do about it because they don't have the majority, but it's a failure in terms of policy.
And then the shooting happened, you know, a year into Biden's administration, and I don't believe there are any laws that he's passed that would have changed it.
Am I right? Did Biden do anything?
That, unless they didn't even attempt anything, that if he had succeeded, would have stopped this shooting?
Nothing, right? So why are they blaming this on the Republicans when they have control of everything and they didn't do a damn thing?
So this is the weakest, the weakest administration I've ever seen, by far, I think.
I mean, certainly in my life, it's the weakest administration.
Where if you can literally have the richest man in the world Say, I think whoever runs the teleprompter is in charge.
And even his own side will say, yeah, that's not too far.
Even if you disagree with that statement, that whoever runs the teleprompter controls the country right now, even if you disagree, you do not say to yourself, that's taking it too far.
Right? The most you can disagree with that is a little bit.
That's it. That's all that's left.
All right. And I guess I saw in The Five yesterday that the NBC poll has Biden's lowest historic point.
It's one of the worst approval ratings for a president of all time, I guess.
They ended energy independence.
Yeah, they did some things.
They did some things.
Alright. The FBI is 0 and 20 on stopping actual terrorists.
Well, I do wonder why we have not had more foreign terrorists on our soil in a long time.
Does anybody understand that?
How do you explain that?
Seriously. How is it that With all the people and all the access to the country and all the technology and all the, you know, the size of things that you need to bring in to be bad is, you know, small, right?
I mean, 9-11 happened with box cutters, right?
So, it's not like they have to smuggle anything in and it's easy to get people in again.
So, why are we not seeing terrorists act like crazy?
Is it because the terrorists don't want to do it?
Because they think we'll be too tough on them back in their home country or something?
Is that why? Or, where are we so good at monitoring communication that we find them all?
I feel like it's that second one.
Because it seems like there would always be somebody who wanted and had the means to do a terrorist attack.
You know, you don't really run out of people who want to do it, do you?
I don't think so. I feel as though we must be able to catch them all.
And the only way that's possible is if we're monitoring all communications, basically everywhere, with our foreign entities, foreign partners.
And that our AI can catch everybody.
Let me say that again.
I don't believe it would be any possibility that we would be so terrorism-free, relatively speaking, from foreign terrorists, the domestic ones we still have for some reason.
No, not for some reason.
Let's be honest.
The reason that this asshole shot up a buffalo store is that the authorities decided not to do anything about it.
Because he had been reported as a danger.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is yet again another case where people had all the warning in the world, but they couldn't do anything about it because he was mentally ill.
So here's why we can stop a foreign terrorist.
Because there's nothing to stop us from stopping them.
There's no law that says, no, don't stop that foreign terrorist.
But what happens if it's a domestic terrorist?
We actually have laws that won't let you do anything about it.
Because they're going to say, well, it's free speech, legal gun ownership, and we don't put mentally ill people in any kind of institution against their will.
If it were a foreign person who also happened to be mentally ill, We would lock them up right away.
Am I right? If it were a foreign terrorist, they would just get locked up or killed right away.
The domestic ones can slip through, not because they're undetected.
They slip through detected.
Detected. So this is telling me the following.
That our AI and our digital surveillance of basically everything must be so good that the AI can catch 100% of foreign terrorists.
It's got to be true.
No, that's too far.
It doesn't have to be true.
I'm saying that I can't think of another explanation, but remember, I'm also an author of a book in which I warn you, just because you can't think of another explanation, that has nothing to do with whether there's another explanation.
It has everything to do with your inability to imagine other things.
So if you can't imagine any other possibility, it might be a problem with your imagination.
That's the UFO thing.
The reason that I'm not a believer in these UFOs is because the argument is we can't imagine what else they would be.
That's the argument. It's not that we've confirmed it.
We simply have the failure of imagination to imagine what it could be given our observation.
It's just a failure of imagination.
So when I see a UFO story, I don't see UFOs, I go, oh, there's a bunch of people who have an imagination failure.
Right? Because if it were a UFO problem, we'd have a frickin' photograph by now.
It wouldn't look like a smudge.
It'd look like a damn UFO by now.
Right? Now, what did I do?
I just did it again.
I just basically told you I couldn't imagine a situation where there wouldn't be a clear photo by now.
But could there be a situation in which there would not be a clear photo and yet there could be real UFOs?
Yes. And that situation could be the UFOs don't want to be seen, so they either move fast or they move at night or they have some technology that makes it difficult, you know, whatever.
So sure, yeah, if you use your imagination.
If you accept that there are alien visitors with high tech, Then anything's in play.
Oh, they're high-tech and baffle your cameras.
So I guess anything is possible.
Could be hidden from us.
You never know. It's the Romulans.
I think it's the Romulans.
So how many of you have been convinced, maybe either from something I said, or something somebody else said, that we do, let's say, I'm going to say, you're at least open to the possibility, so you don't have to have decided.
How many of you are open to the possibility that this reality is actually a simulation created by another civilization?
How many are open to it as of today?
Over on Locals, Yes, yes, yes.
And open, open, open, open.
Unbelievable. I would not have imagined that.
Oh my goodness.
I'm seeing no's.
Yeah, we're definitely seeing no's.
Amazing. The vast majority of you are actually open to the possibility.
May I compliment you?
May I compliment you?
That is exactly intellectually where you should be.
Because the trouble with the theory, or the advantage of it, is that you can't really rule it out easily.
It's based on statistics, and the argument is so simple that everybody can understand the argument.
So if you have an appreciation for statistics, that's all you need.
If you're aware of the fact that 10 to 1 is more likely than 2 to 1, that's all you need.
It doesn't require any other physical understanding of anything.
Uh, no blood in a sim?
No, no, no. You said, uh, Neil, uh, who was it?
Degrassi? You ruled it out?
You can't rule it out.
That's not a thing. All right, um, so, the statistics may be shaped by the simulation.
It could be that math and statistics are the only things you can't tweak within the simulation.
But I suppose you could.
I mean, you could make it seem like the odds of things are different than they are.
That's just software. He has an explanation that makes it unlikely.
No, he doesn't. I mean, I'm sure he...
I believe he would say he said that.
But I do not believe that if you read a counter to this, the simulation theory, that it would look like anything but word salad.
I think it would look like word salad, but that's why I want to say it, so send it to me.
Alright. Simulation theory isn't useful because it's not falsifiable.
Let me deal with that.
If we are a simulation, Would it be useful to know it?
It could be.
There's no way to know. But it could be, and here's why.
I'm trying to understand why affirmations seem to work.
I'm trying to understand why I seem to have the ability to move the entire planet.
Because I can't tell you everything I've ever done.
But I have moved the whole planet a number of times.
And some of them you saw, but mostly you haven't.
And I can't understand that.
You know, am I one in a billion people who have some ability to make crazy things happen in reality?
I don't know. Can't rule it out.
But it seems unlikely.
A billion and one. So...
I can't explain it unless the simulation allows you to steer your reality within the game.
Look at the people who believe in the simulation, not the people who are open to it.
I'm talking about the people who buy into it.
I buy into it. It is my reality for all practical purposes, meaning that I see it, I perceive it, I live it like it's a simulation.
Here's one of the things that I can do in a simulation That I can't do in the real world.
Change the real world.
Change something big in politics.
But you've seen me do it a number of times.
If you're paying attention, you've seen it.
And just trust me that the big stuff, I can never tell you now.
But there are far bigger things that I've been involved with than you could ever imagine.
Well, maybe you could imagine.
But I can't explain it.
Now let's take somebody who's not me.
Let's take Elon Musk, because he's the example of everything, it turns out.
Elon Musk apparently believes the simulation.
That's what he tells us.
Somebody's asking, then why did you mail it?
Marriage fail? Did it?
Let me ask you this.
I'm writing a book on reframing, so I tend to see things in reframes now and just tune my mind to that.
If you have a marriage and it lasts several years and it was good, it was good enough that you stayed in it several years and had tons of good things happen, and then it ends, is that a failure?
Suppose you started a company and it operated for a hundred years and then it went out of business.
Is the company a failure?
Suppose you had a child.
The child grew up, had a career, raised kids, but then the child got old, became a senior citizen, and when the child is 90 years old, the child dies.
No longer a child.
Is that life a loss?
I mean, in a sense, was it a failure?
No. I mean, it was successful until it wasn't.
You know, having had two marriages in my background now, I can tell you that both of them were amazing while they were happening.
They were amazing while they were happening.
But then things change.
Situation changes for whatever reason.
Who knows? Things change.
And then it doesn't work.
And then when something doesn't work, what are you supposed to do about it?
Are you supposed to just stay with it?
Just because you don't want to lose or quit?
You don't want to fail? No.
Life is about change.
Life is about change.
Continuous change. So when things change, you adjust.
And it's painful. Because almost all change has some pain with it, right?
There's friction. So if you're saying to yourself, Scott, Did the end of your either marriage, either one of them, was it sad?
I would say, well, I'm not even sure.
Yes. I mean, you know, you have bad emotions associated with it.
You're angry, you're sad, whatever you are.
And that's temporary. And then something else happens.
Right? So, I don't feel as if these are pass-fail courses.
Life is not pass-fail.
Life is managing change.
So the question you should have asked is, Scott, how well did you manage the change?
I think I might have to make that a chapter in my book.
How well did I manage the change?
And the answer is, pretty well.
Pretty well. I mean, I'm intact.
I feel like all my limbs are here.
You know, I still have a job.
I'm in good shape. I'm literally in good shape.
I'm actually physically fit more than any time in my life.
As I'm approaching, what's today?
Like three weeks or so, I'll be 65.
And I'm literally the fittest I've ever been.
At least visually, yeah.
I can't run as far, probably.
But, I don't know.
I'm not really suffering.
So, when you say to me, Scott, you did not succeed in maintaining your marriage, I say, I'm not sure that that was the right frame.
The frame should have been, how did you manage?
Let me just say something.
Some of you won't recognize this story, but there's a factoid I'd like to drop into the conversation for the few of you who do.
There's something that happened with a cult leader that what you don't know, he basically messaged Christina at some point and she responded with a kissy face, which she showed me, by the way.
It wasn't a secret. Do you know how many times Christina has responded with a kissy face to a man who flirted with her online?
Just guess how many times that's happened.
Just go to her feed and look at her feed.
It's the primary response she does.
I've seen her give a kissy face response to a man flirting with her a thousand times?
Maybe? I don't think that's an exaggeration.
I think I've seen her do it a thousand times.
Now, this guy Tate, who's some kind of weirdo, he's decided that that means he stole my wife.
There are two things that he is unaware of.
Number one, it's a generic response.
Number two, it was six months after our relationship had ended.
It's just that I wasn't talking about it in public.
So he thought it happened during the relationship, but it was well after she and I had We're beyond saving the marriage, so it wasn't anything that bothered me.
So in other words, had she responded any way she wanted, it would have been fine with me, because at that time anything was fair game.
Alright, so I'll just put that out there.
Can you not ask me about that anymore?
Yeah, no more hypothetical questions, no more on that.
That's all we need to say about that.
Alright. Is there any other news that I'm missing?
Why did you like her posting sexy pictures?
What are you basing that on?
When did you hear me say I liked it?
Why would you even make that assumption?
No, my take is that if that's who she was when I met her, you know, it wasn't really up to me to change it.
It was either up to me to be okay with it or to move on, I guess.
What is this? Neil deGrasse is back to believing the simulation after he recently interviewed Nick Okay, so that explains it.
So I couldn't quite understand why Neil deGrasse Tyson, who clearly is smart enough to be a physicist, how he could not understand the argument enough to at least think it's possible.
But I guess he talked to the father of the argument, Nick Bostrom, and now he's open to it, it sounds like, based on the comment I saw on locals just now.
The crying birds are still there.
I've got one window closed here that's closest to me so you don't hear them as well.
Can you believe that Maui weed is not legal?
Except if you have a prescription from Hawaii.
Of all places, of all places Hawaii is probably the most marijuana smoking place on earth and it's not legal recreation.
It's weird. Um, alright.
Yeah, I saw Tucker referred to, uh, who was it?
He was talking to about Crawford.
He called him Eyepatch McCong.
I don't know, Eyepatch McCain.
Eyepatch McCain.
I do not endorse that nickname.
So let me give you a, uh, Let me give you a little tip.
Making fun of a veteran's disability, no matter how clever, doesn't really fly very well.
I didn't love it.
It was deliciously provocative, which he intended it to be.
But I'm not on that train.
So I'm not with Tucker on that.
I didn't say it's not funny.
Let me be clear.
I can appreciate the humor of it.
It's very clever. It's dismissive and everything.
So it's everything he wants it to be.
And he's referring to another wounded veteran, right?
So I'm not sure if that's why he's referring to it.
Is he referring to him as Eyepatch McCain because of his politics or is it also because he's a wounded veteran and that gives him some extra, extra juice?
Is his slap worthy?
Yeah. I think the assault on Tucker is going to get really, really hard between now and 2024.
What do you think? Is it my imagination, or does Tucker seem like...
He's like the...
I don't know what...
How would you describe him now?
Because his role is very important to the ecosystem on the right.
So, would you say he's like the tent-pole conservative?
Does he even call himself...
By the way, does Tucker call himself a conservative or is he independent?
I think he's independent, right?
But since his audience is right-leaning conservative, he's a foil, somebody says.
National treasurer, right?
Well, he could be all of those things.
You know, Tucker's a complicated guy.
Yeah, I think Tucker's gonna be on the serious assault.
And if it's played the way it's usually played, they will make up something that he didn't say and treat it as though he said.
And that's the way the left attacks most things, right?
The primary leftist attack is to literally make up something that almost happened but didn't.
You know, something you can convince people happened but didn't really happen.
And that that's your whole attack.
So they're going to look, so Tucker's going to be the, painted as the white supremacist, you know, grand Kegel or whatever, and they're going to try to go after him for that.
But the one thing that Tucker has consistently done, let's say, correct from a strategic and career perspective, He's always laughed off criticism, and he's never shied away from it.
So he doesn't apologize.
He doesn't back up. I mean, he may have apologized for something, but it was of his own doing, I think.
I don't think he's ever been forced to apologize for anything.
And I think because his audience just goes up, no matter how hard he is attacked, That he's created a good situation.
So he's as close to uncancellable as you can get.
But he's not.
He's as uncancellable as maybe Hannity, in the sense that he's a big profit source for the network.
And he's so popular that it would just cause a...
Can you imagine if either of those two got cancelled in some way?
Now, again, I'm not saying that I agree with their opinions or politics.
That's a completely different subject.
But if the two tentpoles of conservative thought, at least popular conservative thought, you know, if they got canceled in some way, that'd be a pretty big deal.
All right. More Democrats watched Tucker than anyone else.
Is that true? What happened to the Matt Gaetz scandal?
Well, let's go back to that Matt Gaetz so-called scandal.
Were you expecting by now that he would be indicted?
That didn't happen, did it?
Were you expecting by now that the evidence would show he was guilty of something horrible?
Didn't happen, did it? Were you expecting by now that you would hear the name of an accuser?
Or at least that there'd be a specific person with a specific description.
Maybe not the name. If said person were under 18.
So where's all that story?
Where is it? Do you think that that was ever real if you're not hearing about it today?
How real could it have been?
Yeah. Oh, somebody says he's super nice.
You chatted with him. Young Democrats dig him, he said.
All right. You were blazing to write in Maui.
Now, you know, here's the weirdest thing.
The whole time I've been here, I've had brain fog.
And not for the reasons that you might think.
I can't sleep enough here.
I don't know why. I haven't been able to...
I mean, I wrote 40 pages and I got a good start on the book.
But I fall asleep writing every 10 or 15 minutes.
Unless I've got lots of stimulation around me.
So the only place I can write...
Is at a meal.
So I just take my laptop and have lots of people around me making noise and stuff so I can't fall asleep.
And then I can ignore them real easily and write.
So I love to have people to ignore to write.
It's my ideal situation.
I want lots of people, but I want to be able to ignore them.
Because that's how I can stay awake.
You don't like sleep anyway?
I hate sleep. Last night was just...
I'll tell you, last night, if you put a camera on me trying to sleep, and this is after, I don't know, I probably walked 12 miles on the beach.
I did everything you could do to be ready for sleep.
And, you know, my bed is like a mess.
I was probably up... Five times last night.
I was too hot.
I was uncomfortable. I was itchy.
Just everything. I just hate to sleep.
I hate to sleep. It's not earplugs.
It's not about noise.
Try buneural beats.
I have tried binaural beats.
And I... You know, I don't know too much about them, but I can tell you that when I put them on with headphones, it's a certain kind of beat that's supposed to have a mental effect on you.
It does feel like something's happening.
Has anybody ever tried the binaural beats?
I don't know what it's doing, but as soon as you put them on, it's not like regular noise.
It feels like something's happening to your brain.
Let's see. Do you know if Cerno still believes in the simulation?
Well, I don't know if he ever believed it.
I'm not aware that he believed it.
But I'm not aware that he ruled it out.
If I had to guess, he probably puts it in the category of things that could be one interpretation of the universe.
I think he prefers others, though.
I think he prefers more of a Christian narrative, is that true?
I can't speak for him, so yeah, I'm not...
I spend much less time wondering about his religious journey than I do about his other opinions.
Because the religious journey is a little bit more about himself, and it's sort of an individual thing, even though he shares it with everybody, which I always appreciate.
All right. Fast Company, we're not living in a simulation, probably.
Who said that in 18?
Master back in Detroit auto plants?
Oh no! Moon over Maui right now?
You watch Netflix to put you to sleep?
What's Musk going to say next?
Well, who could predict?
What could be harder than trying to predict that?
Alright, I believe just before I signed on here, I saw a Rasmussen tweet.
So I think there's a new Rasmussen poll.
Let's see what they got going on here.
Two-thirds of voters favor limits on abortion.
So Rasmus says, more voters describe themselves as pro-choice than pro-life, but they do support state laws that limit how late.
So I guess that line between pro-choice and pro-life is sort of murky because people have different ideas of where to draw that line.
Okay, I guess we knew that.
The latest Rasmussen blah blah blah survey says 67% of likely U.S. voters believe abortion should not be legal past the first three months.
So two-thirds of people are in favor of at least not having it past the first three months.
That includes 24% who think all abortions should be illegal.
24%. I'm not even going to say anything about that because this is too provocative.
Too provocative.
Let's just say, you see that third rail?
Here's that third rail.
Here's me. I see you.
I'm not going to get near you.
There was a time when I would have gone to the next level in this conversation and been cancelled immediately by my audience for good reason.
Another 13% say abortion should be legal up to the first six months of pregnancy.
13% should be legal up to the first...
Wow.
Wow. But, see the trouble is with these polls.
I believe people are adding their own assumptions.
Don't you? Because I think that the 13% who say it should be legal up to the first six months are almost certainly saying only under the condition of.
I don't believe there's...
It'd be hard to find anybody who thinks you should abort a six-month-old baby for anything except a health emergency for the mother.
Am I right? So I believe the context is if you have to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn but definitely a baby by six months.
If you had to choose, then this number of people would say that the mother should be able to choose her own self-interest.
And that has a little less to do with abortion and more to do with who gets to decide who lives and dies.
So that's a slightly different question in that case.
And so, one of my macro takes on abortion is that we're never talking about the same thing, even when we think we are.
Somebody says, killing the baby is not necessary.
Well, I would think that would be true in almost every case.
But you cannot imagine any case?
Can you not imagine any case where there would be a choice between which one lives or dies?
Because I think there must be some rare cases where that's true.
And I think that these people are talking about the rare case.
Somebody says never. You know, with modern technology, maybe it is never.
Because at six months old, you could pull out pretty quickly, right?
With the cesarean. Somebody says very rare.
Yeah. Okay.
All right. Well, I don't know enough about the medical part of that to have a Good opinion on it.
I asked yesterday because one of my biggest problems in life right now is that there's a belief that I was pro-vaccination and pro-mask.
Those of you who watch me know that I simply talked about the arguments on both sides, but I was never pro-mask mandate and never pro-vaccine mandate.
But, so I asked how many people thought I was Pro-vax or pro-mask.
And there's a lot of people.
So a lot of people have the impression that I was exactly the opposite of my opinion.
And I couldn't figure out why, and there seems to be one tweet that was misinterpreted.
Now, you could argue that that's my fault, which is a separate situation.
But the tweet was that after I got vaccinated, I said that, I'm paraphrasing now, but I think I said, if you're unvaccinated, you're in a pandemic, and if you're vaccinated, it's just Tuesday.
And people said, well, that is telling me that you were pushing the vaccinations.
I can see why they say that.
Can't you? I can see why you might interpret it that way.
Because I was saying that it's the difference between feeling like you're in a pandemic and feeling like you're not.
Does that, to you, feel as though it is promoting vaccinations?
Go. Would you say that that statement, that the way you feel after you get vaccinated, you feel you're outside of the pandemic, Does that, does that promote vaccinations?
I think I saw the answer I would have said, which is kind of, kind of, you could interpret it that way.
So I'm going to put that on me.
Alright, so clearly this is a problem I brought on myself.
Here's what I intended.
Alright, so I'm going to tell you what I intended and then you can see how I missed.
The intention was to tell you how I felt.
Is that telling you what to feel?
Do you interpret it that way?
If I say, I like this ice cream, am I telling you that you'll like it?
I mean, you might, but that's not what I'm telling you.
I'm just telling you I like it.
If I say, I like bicycles, am I promoting them?
Kinda. Kinda.
But it's not what's in my mind.
Right? My intention is not to promote them.
My intention is just to say, I like bicycles.
That's it. I like bicycles.
So I can definitely see how somebody took it too far.
But let me further explain.
What I meant when I said, you have to remember the context of when I said it.
So it was when mask mandates were dropping the first time before they came back.
And it was when, if you were vaccinated, you were a free person.
If you were vaccinated, you could go to restaurants and you could travel.
So my comment that if you're vaccinated, you don't feel like you're in a pandemic, was literally true.
Because once vaccinated, I could travel, I could go to restaurants.
Yeah, I may have to show the little card, but that's one second of my time.
So the feeling of getting vaccinated was a feeling of being done with the pandemic.
Now it turns out that it ramped up and it got worse.
But at the time, that's how I felt.
Now, Is that telling you to get vaccinated?
I'm telling you that I got a card so I can travel.
You agree with that, right?
You all agree that people who are vaccinated gained more freedom.
I mean, they took a risk to get it, right?
There's always a risk with everything.
But they gained more freedom than other people.
So for me, the pandemic was over.
I didn't realize it was going to get worse, and then I'd be right back into it.
But at the time, it felt like, well, it's over.
You guys have a problem.
Now, part of that also was that the science seemed to indicate that if you didn't drop dead fairly soon from the vaccination, and I didn't, that you probably were way better off and that your risk of dying from COVID would go from really small, you know, something under, I don't know, one or two percent, to basically forget about even thinking about it.
So, I do worry about a 2% risk of dying.
2% is enough.
You know, with my age and asthma, etc., it's hard to estimate anybody's individual risk, but I figure 2%.
You know, maybe on the high side, 2%, 1% on the high side.
But a 1 or 2% chance of death is a lot.
I would avoid all 2% chances of dying.
Would you? If you get into your car to drive to the store, it's not a 2% chance of dying.
It's way less. It's just that you drive a lot, and other people do too.
Is there anything else I do that has a 2% chance of dying?
Can you think of anything?
Is there any normal thing I do that would get me anywhere in the neighborhood of 2% chance of dying because I did it?
I can't think of anything I do.
Road rage.
Yeah.
So, anyway, the point of that was how I personally felt, and then people interpreted that as being some kind of recommendation, which it clearly was not.
Now, the context that other people didn't know is how many times I've said, I'm not going to make a medical recommendation.
And how many times I've said, every individual is different, you just need to make up your own mind.
If you do that, Then you would have seen my tweet as just talking about how I felt at the moment.
You know, my freedom had been returned before it was taken away again, but it was returned momentarily.
Even mild COVID creates long-term risks.
Well, we don't know. Scott's cardio is backpedaling.
What's that mean? You stated you're not a doctor.
That's correct. Prisoner Island, can every challenge be overcome?
No. But most challenges can be overcome if you're willing to pay the price.
It's just the price might be too high.
Buying pot might be laced with something dangerous.
Do you think I have a 2% chance of dying every time I smoke pot?
I don't know. I don't think there would be a lot of pot smoking if that were the case.
You probably just looked for persuasion and then you saw it.
Yeah. Yeah, that's why I'm taking responsibility for that.
Because I am a professional communicator.
And if I professionally communicate, Poorly.
And I would say that's definitely an example of that.
But here's my blind spot.
My blind spot was thinking that people knew the context.
And that was ridiculous.
Because not everybody would know the context.
For a minute, I suppose I didn't need them for a while.
No driving at 120, yeah.
Any thoughts on Bill Gates backpedaling?
Did he backpedal on the vaccinations?
Or what? Going to war with China?
Yeah. Okay, that's risky.
He said COVID was an old person's disease.
Well, everybody Neo says that Scott Adams was very smug about being fully vaccinated.
Now he's backpedaling. Nope.
I was never smug about it.
That never happened, Neo?
You asshole? So I'm going to be smug about you.
We'll hide you on that channel.
So that would be a case of you having an interpretation.
Let me tell you what I was smug about.
I was definitely smug.
But I was smug about the thought process.
I was never smug that getting the vaccination would 100% be the best situation for me and not kill me by accident.
I was never unaware and I never underplayed that a vaccination that was, let's say, speedily developed would be as safe as one that you had a lot of information about.
I was always clear about that.
So how could you be smug about a guess?
I told you a hundred times that I didn't know if getting the vaccination was a good decision or not, and I put it off as long as possible so there'd be as much information as possible of other people taking it.
And if there had been a way to avoid it entirely and still be able to fly, I wouldn't have done it.
Does that sound smug as I talk to you now?
I'll tell you what was smug.
When I debunked your bad arguments.
Because there were a lot of people who were on my side, in essence.
But I had bad arguments to get there and I couldn't handle that.
So I was definitely smug about...
Let me tell you, let me give you the mask argument.
I'm smug that I'm 100% right about masks and always have been.
I'm completely, completely sure.
Because it's based on logic.
And plume theory.
And I doubt there's anybody who could argue against it.
Now, if you saw a live stream in which I asked how many people watching the live stream at the moment were engineers, and I said, all right, let me just talk to the engineers and watch me convince them that masks work.
And right in front of you, I convinced every engineer who was watching that masks work a little bit.
You want me to do it again?
We know that the more virus you're exposed to in the beginning matters.
And we know that the masks don't work because they distribute the virus in many ways and they don't stop it.
But that distribution guarantees that the person that you're standing right in front of is not getting a full dose of virus as much as it could be.
Now, no engineer is going to argue with what I just said, because they know you can't blow out a candle with a mask on.
You could try, but the air is going to come out the side.
That's all it needs to do.
If all it does is come out the sides, you're reducing the amount of virus that you're shooting into somebody's face.
And in those cases, but not in the case where everybody's just sitting in the same room for eight hours.
If everybody's just sitting in the same room for eight hours, well, maybe the room is just so full of virus by then it doesn't make much difference.
But for general, you know, communication and relationships, if you can remove the firehose of virus directly into my face, even if I get it, even if I get infected, I should have much less of an illness or death.
Now, I just convinced 100% of you.
That was always the argument.
That was always the argument.
There was not a single person who could argue with what I just said.
Right? The comments just went silent.
Every single one of you just said, oh, that's actually a pretty good argument.
Every one of you. Every single one of you just agreed with me.
So can I be smug?
I just convince every one of you.
I think I deserve to be smug.
Don't I? If you had done that, I would give you credit.
Right? If I watched you do what I just did, I would definitely give you credit for it.
I'd say, Jesus, that was pretty good.
Okay, you won. You win.
I'm convinced. Now, the only people who are going to push back are going to say stuff like, No!
Or, LOL! But nobody in the comments is going to give, like, a one-sentence pushback where, oh, Scott, you're forgetting this part of physics or something like that.
Nothing. Because the argument is completely airtight.
There's nothing you can say about it.
Now, I will say, let me say this as clearly as possible.
I don't think you saw the effect of masks in the larger statistics.
Everybody okay with that?
That, as far as I know, I haven't seen the difference.
So that's why I was not in favor of mask mandates.
Because while I believe there's a 100% chance they make a difference in some situations, 100% chance.
There doesn't seem to be enough of a difference, overall, that I would make all the citizens wear masks.
So I separate the mandate, which seems ridiculous, because it just doesn't show up in the statistics, with the fact that physics is physics and engineering is engineering.
You can't get away from that.
All right. So, I try to limit my smugness to situations where nobody would disagree if they hurt my argument.
I'm sure I don't do that.
But I try to. That's the only time that I'm going to be completely smug is when I know you will agree with me.
You will agree with me.
Everyone of you agrees with me right now.
And if you say you know, you're lying.
Or you're lying to yourself.
Everyone of you agrees with what I just said.
Alright. You don't leave.
They're just... I don't know what that's about.
Always wondered if wearing a mask could be negative.
I would guess that for some people the mask is negative.
How many times has somebody accidentally picked up the wrong mask and it was the mask of an infected person?
Just think about it.
Just imagine in your mind how many times your family used a mask and then you were going to use it again.
And you saw a mask.
Have you ever been in your car You forgot to bring a fresh mask, and there is one in the car from a family member that had just used it.
You ever pick up that mask that your family member used and put it on because it's your only mask?
You forgot to bring one? Yes, you have.
Yes, you have. So, in a hundred different ways, can you imagine that a mask would make things worse?
Yes, I can. Yes.
That's not the only example.
I'll bet I could come up with all kinds of ways.
That wearing a mask makes it worse, in some cases.
In some cases.
So that's why I disagree with the mandate, because it's not showing up in the numbers that it matters.
But I can't get past engineering and physics.
Why did we not see one particle physicist talking about masks, or what?
You know, even when I saw the experts talking about the masks, they never were smart about it.
I don't believe I saw one expert say what I said to you today.
Had they said that, everybody would have agreed on masks.
Think about that.
If the experts had described it to you the way I just did, about just reducing the plumes, Everybody would have said, oh shoot, I guess they do work in some situations, but I don't want to wear them, or it's not enough of a difference.
But it would have completely changed how you felt about it.
You still wouldn't want to do it, but at least you'd say, okay, I get the argument.
The argument makes sense.
All right. Ask a drywaller if they work.
Well, everybody who's making the argument that viruses penetrate masks is making the wrong argument.
Because nobody disagrees with that.
And that was never the point.
God, I never want to talk about masks again.
How do you miss a bullet a few microns wide?
Yeah, my top two, you're right.
People don't understand friction.
They don't understand cost-benefit analysis.
They don't understand systems versus goals.
Those are three things I harp on along.
Alright. Any new micro-lessons coming up?
Yes, but I'm going to have to get home for that.
Russell Brand had a Payments to CDC people.
Well, I do assume that our regulators are corrupt.
So I don't know which ones or specifically anything.
It's not a specific allegation.
But if you look at especially the issue of rapid tests, It seems to me just sort of obvious there had to be massive corruption in the FDA. It just seems obvious.
Now, I can be convinced it didn't happen.
You know, I'm not talking about some specific individual or something.
But from the outside, it seems pretty obvious that it was corrupt.
And if it's not, they certainly owe us an explanation.
And they didn't give us one that made sense.
I mean, they explained it, but not in a way that wasn't stupid.
So, I'm pretty sure that the FDA could give us an explanation of why they waited so long that wasn't stupid if it were real.
Right? But the only thing they've offered us are reasons that are stupid.
And clearly, they're all smarter than the explanation they've given us.
So they don't believe their own explanation, that's for sure.
Right? I don't like to read minds, but if you know they're a certain level of smart, but they've given you an explanation that isn't even close to the level of smart that they are, well, there's something fishy going on.
Right? That much you can know.
Please know that your words are powerful.
I do know that. It is what it is, that's what I heard.
Jenny, you just summed up the entire world.
That is what it is. If we didn't get vaxxed, you didn't care if we died.
Have I seen Carmen Sandiego?
No. Is it possible for Elon Musk not to come up in conversation in social gatherings?
I've not experienced it.
I've not experienced it.
I'm pretty sure 100% of my recent conversations with anybody, he came up.
I mean, it used to be Trump, but now it's in for a while.
It used to be Joe Can we call the Democratic Party the projection party?
I think you can call them the vulnerable narcissist party.
Common cold is 40% of yearly flu deaths.
Is it? I don't think this is long.
Is this a long live stream?
I started late, so I don't think it's that long.
Can you do a character based on Kamala?
Maybe I could. Oh, okay.
All right. Then I guess we're done.
And I'm going to go talk to you tomorrow.
I'm going to go do some work and maybe walk on the beach and see if I can enjoy my last day here.
And I'll be traveling tomorrow, but I think I'll have time to do my show in the morning.
