Episode 1761 Scott Adams: Well, It Turns Out Everything You Suspected Was True. Let's Talk About It
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
58% of Democrats want Fed control of "hate speech"
Janet Yellen wrong on "transitory inflation"
No natural immunity for Omnicron?
Sussman trial, what was the defense?
Hillary vs Putin, the long game
Everything you suspected was true
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and may I say that this will be the best one of all time.
We're going to do the simultaneous sip first, and then let me tell you, it's going to go skyrocketing after that.
Skyrocketing, I tell you. Never better.
And all you need to get this going is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine to the day, the thing that puts a tingle on the back of your neck.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and a lot of simultaneous things are going to happen right now.
Go! Yeah, that was perfect, actually.
So here's an update on my COVID quarantine situation.
Update, update. Let's see, so Saturday was my first symptoms and I tested positive with the home test.
Today is Wednesday.
And I feel not just 100% better, but better than I've ever been.
And here's why.
I realized the other day, because I had a little online side conversation, that some part of long COVID could be confirmation bias, right?
You think you're going to have these lasting symptoms, then anything that ever happens to you for the next 10 years, you say, well, it's because of the COVID. Am I right?
You're basically going to imagine yourself into every symptom you were going to have anyway, being long COVID. Now, knowing that that's the case, what would be the defense?
And I've employed what I call the Spider-Man reframe.
I don't know if this will work yet, but it seems to be working so far.
And the Spider-Man reframe goes like this.
Not every mutation is bad.
Sometimes it's a superpower.
And so instead of looking for whatever negative health consequences I might have in the future and saying, well, I think there's my long COVID kicking in, I'm going to look for anything that looks like things are going a little extra well for me, and I'm going to say, I think that's from the COVID. For example, just today I was thinking, is it just me or do I look a little extra sexy today?
And I thought...
It's not my imagination.
It's the long COVID. It's starting to kick in with some benefits.
That's the first one. I mean, that's the obvious one.
Probably a lot of you noticed as soon as you signed on.
You're thinking, what is it?
Why is he a little bit sexier?
Did something happen? Yeah, yeah.
It's called Long COVID, Spider-Man Edition.
Superpowers. Now, you're also saying, why is he funnier?
Why is this a better show today?
Same reason. Same reason.
Long COVID. Spider-Man edition.
Now, some people are going to get the low energy and all kinds of bad things, supposedly.
And they are not framing this right.
They're creating the wrong future for themselves in this simulation.
So, if as we go on, it seems to you that I'm smarter, better adjusted, happier...
Or any of those things.
It's not your imagination.
That's the long COVID. Kick it in.
Spider-Man in addition.
Alright. Have you noticed that whoever it is that's in control of the truth would love to also limit hate speech?
That's a dangerous combination, isn't it?
Because if I just said to you, hey...
Maybe we should have less hate speech.
And that's the only variable?
Yeah, less hate speech.
That's good. Your first instinct might be, hey, I'd like a little less hate speech.
But what if somebody else is in charge of deciding what that hate speech is?
Well, then suddenly it's the worst thing in the world.
So Rasmussen did a little poll here and said, found out that 58% of Democrats say the federal government should take action to suppress online hate speech.
But that view is shared by only 31% of Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party.
So 58% of Democrats want the federal government to do more about hate speech.
Now, Democrats are also the ones who sort of are in charge of the government, or a lot of it.
So, wouldn't this be the worst thing in the world?
You just can't have these two things at the same time.
Well, maybe you just need free speech, and that's the end of that conversation.
And also, I saw a tweet by...
The Rasmussen account, which you should be following.
Rasmussen Reports.
And this was Abe Lincoln, right?
This quote. You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
And I thought to myself, that needs to be updated a little bit.
See if you can tell what's missing.
Right? It was probably pretty clever back when Lincoln said it, and I imagine if I'd been there, I would have said, whoa, well said, well said, Abe, if I had been there at the time.
But it doesn't age well.
It didn't age well.
I'll tell you why. So I'll give it to you again, see if you can hear it.
What is missing from this?
Quote, you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Well, I'll tell you what's missing.
The most important part, which matters today.
You only need to fool half of the people all the time.
And that's kind of easy.
You only need to fool half the people.
And unfortunately, you can do that all the time.
We just won't agree which half it is.
I'm pretty sure it's the half I'm not in.
Can we take a vote?
I feel like this is something we can agree on.
Although we all have completely different opinions all over the board, can we agree that the half that's wrong is the half that we're not in?
Everybody? Can we agree on that?
Right? Am I right?
Yeah. It's the other people.
If I were to write an essay on what is the one problem that's with this country, and maybe, yay, the world.
The big problem?
It's other people. It's other people.
Present company excluded, obviously.
You're pretty awesome.
You're pretty awesome, and I know I am.
So, it's really other people.
Other people. Now, I know they think the same thing, but the difference is they're wrong.
That's how other people are.
No wonder people don't like other people.
If you think about how other people act, well, it's just natural.
Janet Yellen, Treasury Secretary, she admits that maybe she was wrong about this whole inflation thing.
So I thought it was a little bit more transitory.
And it was. I just love the fact that her last name is Yellen.
Y-E-L-L-E-N. Do you think that caused her to have to modify her behavior at all at any point in her life?
I don't know if that's her born name or if that's a married name.
But I hate to be a woman in a powerful position and have the last name of Yellen.
Old Yellen. Old Yellen.
Okay, I wasn't even thinking of Old Yellen.
Okay, that's a funny reference.
But I was just thinking, you know, don't women always say, and I don't have personal experience here, but correct me if I'm wrong, but don't women always say that they're judged more harshly if they're tough in business?
And here's Janet Yellen.
She's at the top of her game in business, Treasury Secretary.
Doing pretty well.
And her last name is Yellen.
I wonder if she had to be extra soft and she still scared people.
Like, you've been called to the boss's office.
The boss? Yellen?
Well, I don't know if she'll be yelling.
No, I mean, that's her name.
Yeah. I mean, she just sounds scary.
I wouldn't want to go to a boss's office if her name was Yellen.
Anyway, she says that she was wrong about this inflation thing.
How many of you think she was wrong and how many of you think she was lying and knew it?
I guess you'd have to know it if you were lying.
How many think she was lying in the comments?
Comments? Oh, you skeptics.
Oh, you disbelievers.
Why do you distrust Government officials so...
Oh, oh, I'm so disappointed in all of you for being so distrustful.
Okay, yes.
I'm going to say that we can't read minds.
Right? Can't read minds.
I will allow...
I will allow that's possible.
She's not lying. Because the other possibility is that she's confessing that she's thoroughly incompetent at her job.
And I think we should at least give her that benefit of a doubt.
If she's saying, no, I'm not lying, I'm just really, really bad at my job and should never be in this position, maybe we should believe her.
No, I'm just kidding.
I'm kidding. She lied.
We guess. We don't know.
But it kind of looks like it, doesn't it?
New York Times had an article.
Now, the important part about this is that it's the New York Times.
So New York Times is the paper of record, blah, blah, blah.
So if they say it, it's supposed to be true.
So I'm not going to get into an argument too much about what's true or not.
Yeah, I am a little bit.
Okay, I'm lying.
The New York Times had an article that says basically that what we know now is that masks do work, but mandates don't.
Meaning that masks work, except that when you wear them, they don't do anything that you hoped would happen when you wear them.
But they work.
But they work. I'm wondering if this is sort of the difference between the engineer and the politician or something, you know, two views of the world.
Let me ask you a question to see where your brain is at, all right?
If you took a screen off a screen door and then you took a bucket of water and you poured it through the screen, would the screen door, you know, an actual screen from your door, would it stop the water?
Let's say that was your intention, was to stop the water.
Would it do it? What do you say?
Some say no.
Some say stop.
Some? What do you mean some?
The thing's full of holes.
Why only some? Some say it slows it down.
Right? Well, so, I guess it depends how much of an engineer you are.
And I mean that in the best possible sense, because I always have the highest regard for the way engineers think, more so than scientists in many ways, because it's more the practical way of thinking.
And here's how I think of it.
When I imagine pouring water through a screen, if you can touch the screen right after you poured the water and it's still wet, it did something.
But if you could argue that it worked, or that you should put screens on your roof instead of shingles, that's sort of a bad argument.
So things may technically slow things down.
So I think when they did studies that say masks work, it did create some friction, but not enough to make a difference.
And then the article hypothesizes that it's because people were bad at wearing their masks.
Here's what I think. Nobody socially distanced at home.
Maybe that's the whole thing.
Maybe it doesn't matter what you say about masks if people go home and just take them off and do whatever the hell they want to do.
Especially with their neighbors and their friends.
Because I think there was such massive non-social distancing.
That there's nothing you could have done with masks that you would have noticed in the data.
But at least the New York Times has said that you can't...
It's not obvious in the data.
Now, as Andres Backhouse points out, that's not the standard for knowing if something worked.
You can't just sort of look at two places or even two things that you think are similar in different periods of time.
You're never really comparing the right stuff.
So you can never really be sure.
And there are too many variables in there, etc.
But if you're making a social policy that's affecting a lot of people, like in a really fundamental way, and there's not enough of a positive impact that you can even identify it, that's a good enough reason not to do it.
Because freedom has to be the tiebreaker, right?
If you can't tell if it makes a difference overall, you have to go with freedom.
To me, that seems like a no-brainer.
Anyway, so I think you could say that masks worked in some minor way that didn't matter to the pandemic.
How about this for timing?
You know, do you ever think that you live in a simulation and it's designed just to F with you, personally?
Here was my situation.
For about three years now, or whatever it's been, I've been trying to surf this pandemic and play it right.
So early on, when it was the fog of war, I went into maximum caution.
I never washed my groceries.
I was never worried about surfaces too much.
Well, maybe in the first week or so I was.
But the fog of war, I played it that way.
I go, okay, good. Even though I exaggerated the risk in my mind, I didn't get the virus.
And it was just a few weeks, no big deal.
But then as we learned more and more about it, I thought, okay, my best bet is to let other people get the vaccination first and wait as long as I can without getting the virus before I get the vaccination, before I even decide.
And then I decided I wanted it because I wanted to travel, basically.
Now... Getting the vaccination in my case never made any difference, as far as I can tell.
In other words, I believe I got a vaccination that gave me a risk of a vaccination, however small.
I don't know what size it is.
But I can tell at this point, because I actually didn't contract it, and it's unlikely that the vaccination would have stopped me from contracting it, that I took the risk of the vaccination.
But now I know that it didn't benefit me.
It doesn't mean it was the wrong decision.
It just means that when you buy insurance, you don't always catch on fire.
So if you think of it as an insurance policy, it wasn't wrong.
It just now we know how it turned out.
Yeah, it was my choice.
It was my choice. That was key.
As somebody says, the key thing here is it was my choice the whole time.
Then I decided to not get the second set of boosters.
So I got the first two, the pair.
And I said to myself, oh, now this Omicron's coming along.
Now with the Omicron, once I get that, because I probably will, everybody will, then I've got the Omicron immunity.
The Delta and the Alpha are behind us, I think.
And then I've got all my Omicron immunity.
It's better than having even a vaccination, because apparently the vaccination doesn't do much for Omicron.
And, like, just yesterday I said to myself, finally, finally, it's been a long, you know, long search through the swamp, but I reached the promised land.
I survived Omicron, which was easy, right?
Now I've got natural immunity to the thing that's the one.
Yesterday, the day that I achieved my goal of the ultimate immunity in the perfect timing, we also learned that there's no such thing as natural immunity for Omicron.
If you haven't heard that yet, allow me to say, fuck you, fuck me, and fuck all of us.
Because that was the one thing that we were hoping for.
The one thing we hoped for is that if you get this fucking thing once, you're done.
Or maybe twice and done.
But now it turns out, yes, if you haven't heard this, this is Bloomberg.
I just tweeted it yesterday.
So you can see it in my Twitter feed.
So this is brand new.
Apparently, there are so many different Omicron variants that getting one of them gives you no protection from its cousin.
And you're not likely to get the same one you got again.
I mean, you might have some protection from the one you got, but there's so many out there, it's basically...
Wasn't it...
Was it Jimmy Kimmel who got Omicron twice this month?
He got it twice in three weeks.
And apparently, that's going to happen to all of us.
Apparently you don't get much natural immunity now from Omicron.
There's too many of them. Now, what are the odds that in the very day that I recovered from the virus and had my, you know, my dreamed of ultimate, you know, I'm done with it, never have to think about it again immunity, is the day they find out it's not real.
What were the odds of that, really?
I feel like the odds of that were low.
Yeah, monkeypox. Up next.
Monkeypox. All right, well, that's the current thing there.
And then there's this story that I guess it came out when nobody's paying attention to the news that there's some hacking vulnerabilities to electronic voting machines.
Specifically, the ones who were tested, and it's not to say these are the only ones, but the ones that they tested first were from a company called Dominion.
I don't know if you've heard that name in reference to voting machines.
But apparently, there were some vulnerabilities which could be exploited.
Now, I'm quick to say that there's no evidence...
That any Dominion voting machines were, in fact, exploited.
So that's not the claim.
Nobody's claiming they were exploited.
Indeed, no court has found that any major fraud happened in 2016.
None. None of it was proven.
And as you know, If you look in the wrong place for something, and you use the wrong sensor to find it, and you don't find it, it's not there.
That's what we've been taught, and that's what I believe.
And so, with the Dominion Machines, while there is no evidence whatsoever that anything untoward happened, there are concerns.
There are concerns. There are at least, it seemed some suggestion that these were bad enough that a vote could have been changed, but what we are not told is whether there would be any way for a vote to be changed that we wouldn't know about or be able to easily know about, I guess. So, what I don't know is, would it be detectable?
Is every possible thing you could do to one of these vulnerabilities, are they all detectable?
Now, I think the company said that their current procedures would have caught all of these problems.
And that might be true.
So I actually also feel bad for the company.
So let me...
Let me give Dominion a little bit of support here.
I don't feel like their side of the argument got shown in this article at all.
So I'm not so sure.
And this came from, was it AP or Reuters or something?
But I'd like to hear their side of the argument.
What is the worst vulnerability?
Maybe they can't tell us because it makes it even more dangerous.
But I'd love to know, what was the worst vulnerability?
And then if they say they have a procedure that would have made that vulnerability not such a big deal anyway, what was that procedure?
And if somebody had gotten past it, how would you know?
There's just some basic questions like that.
But they might have good answers to that.
Right? They might say, yeah, you know, I hear what you're saying, but there's no way that could have happened, and here's why.
Maybe. Who knows?
I always thought that the big vulnerability in voting systems is the human beings.
Isn't it? I feel like an insider could do sort of anything.
Maybe you need two insiders.
It might not be possible with one, but maybe you need two.
I always thought that to imagine that any system is unhackable is pretty unrealistic.
So now we know that the voting machines are hypothetically less secure than one would want.
Well, in the surprising, not surprising story of the day, that Sussman attorney guy that was being...
Charged in the Durham case for lying to the FBI for saying that he was not working for Hillary Clinton, I guess, when he brought the Russia collusion lies to the FBI. And The spin that I'm seeing from...
I don't even know if this is a spin, so that's unfair.
The narrative, let's say, I've seen on Fox News is that it was a D.C. jury and they're all Democrats and Hillary Clinton supporters and there was no way that Sussman was going to get convicted even though the evidence was clearly shown that he lied.
Now... I don't know.
I'm having a little bit of trouble with that, because on one hand, I'm willing to believe that a D.C. jury would always pardon a Democrat, or often enough that it could explain what's going on.
I mean, that's within the plausible range, I think.
Doesn't mean it's true, but it's within the plausible range.
The other possibility is that I've never once seen this story explained accurately.
How about that? How about the reason that I'm surprised is that I've never once seen the real news?
Right? Why would you rule that out?
If you were surprised by the verdict, why is it one of the possibilities that you personally have never seen the real news?
And that if you saw the real news, you'd say, oh, yeah, it's obvious he wasn't going to be convicted of this.
Because what the hell was the defense?
Didn't they have a defense?
The news I saw was that it's obvious he lied.
End of the story. That's all I saw.
I never even saw a defense.
The defense was, no, I didn't.
And I thought the evidence was pretty clear he did.
That's what I thought. But does that mean I saw fake news or that it was a fake jury?
Which is more likely?
It was a fake jury, meaning they just didn't even follow the law, or that the news that I watched, and maybe some of you too, was so fake that we don't realize that the jury had a perfectly good reason to acquit him?
What's more likely?
I feel it's more likely that it was fake news.
But it's probably a little of both.
Meaning that whatever the defense did never got to my ears, but I'd like to hear it.
So the defense probably put up a reasonably good defense, I have to think.
And I think that one of the facts I hadn't heard before is that the cab ride over was billed not to Hillary Clinton.
The cab ride over to talk to the FBI. Alright, well what does it take to get reasonable doubt?
It could be just one of those reasonable doubt things where the case is based entirely upon what somebody was thinking.
Is that it? Because I think, to be honest, I think I could have gotten him off on that if it had been me.
I think if I had been the lawyer, I think I could have gotten him off.
I'd say, you know, it really just sort of depends on what you think he was thinking.
That's not a standard for convicting somebody.
Some version of that.
Maybe that's what it is. Alright, so a lot of smart people are saying that it was probably a jury problem, and I do not discount that.
But also don't discount that there might have been a defense that you just didn't see.
And maybe it's just corruption.
I would say that's a good possibility.
But if you thought that a Democrat would get caught red-handed and then prosecuted, it looks like that didn't happen.
Maybe the court right-handed part.
But here's the amazing thing.
This is Fox reporting, too, I think.
During the course of the trial, Robbie Mook, who was the Clinton campaign manager, he actually testified that Hillary Clinton approved disseminating the unproven and debunked information to the media.
So we actually have a court testimony by Hillary Clinton's campaign manager that she literally was the kingpin for the Russia collusion hoax.
The most dangerous hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
Except for her other hoaxes, I guess.
And... And somehow...
Somehow we're okay with that.
I guess we just go on.
Oh well. I guess we know that now.
So CNN's, the way they're handling it, I thought was fascinating.
And I've said this before, but CNN became really entertaining again.
And it's because I learned to read it differently.
Because now I read it for what the official narrative is trying to be, like to watch them try to turn a narrative.
I'm not really looking at them for news anymore.
It's more about a peek behind the curtain to find out what the powers that be you want.
So Chris Silliza is trying to paint this as...
Not a gigantic travesty of justice, the thing about Sussman not being convicted.
So he writes, and he goes, for years, literally, Donald Trump has insisted that Hillary Clinton engaged in a purposeful conspiracy designed to keep him out of the White House.
So he says this like he's now going to debunk this.
But that's the part that was proven to be true.
Didn't Robbie Mook testify that that was true?
That Hillary Clinton did engage in a purposeful conspiracy designed to keep him out of the White House.
But the way Silliza sets it up, it makes you think that now he's going to show you that that was proven not to be true.
And then he goes to probe into it, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And he goes, on Tuesday, Sussman was found not guilty of the lying charge, blah, blah, blah.
So now he says the verdict is a major defeat for Durham and is blah, blah, blah.
And it remains to be seen when blah, blah, blah.
And I'm thinking, did he just tie together two things that weren't related?
So he starts out by saying that Trump made these claims, and then he says that this one specific set of charges against Sussman didn't hold up.
But during the course of the trial, Trump was proven correct, right?
Because Robby Mook confirmed exactly...
And didn't we learn that the lawyer did work for the campaign?
It's just not the lying to the FBI part that was the problem.
Apparently he got away with that.
So... This is weird.
Like, the amount of gaslighting here is so head-shaking and so massive...
You don't know what to do with it.
Like, your brain can't really process it.
It's too big of a gaslight.
You just go, I want to think about something else now.
So apparently it's not any kind of a crime for Hillary Clinton to have created a hoax about Russia collusion with a political candidate that could have changed the course of history.
Let me ask you this.
If the United States had not been primed by several years of Hillary Clinton lying about Russia colluding with Trump...
Would we have been backing Ukraine as vigorously now?
It feels like the United States had been primed for an anti-Russia situation.
And then an anti-Russia situation, hey, guess what?
It came up. So it feels like Hillary has been involved in a long game against Putin, and Putin's been in a long game against Hillary, and we're just sort of the innocent bystanders.
Like, we're just drive-by victims as they're strafing each other every few years.
But suppose it was a crime, For somebody like Hillary Clinton to come up with a completely fake hoax and try to sell it to the FBI... It'd be one thing to just say it on TV. You expect your politicians to lie.
But to actually get law enforcement involved to take down a president?
What should be the penalty for that if that were a crime?
But what should be the penalty if it were a crime?
Well, I did a little Twitter poll.
20% said death.
21% said life in prison.
10 years in prison was the most popular one, 56%.
So basically, we've got the woman who would have run or would have been the president, if not for Trump, And 56% think she should have gone to prison for 10 years for the way she handled the election.
At least people answered my poll.
Not exactly a scientific poll.
So I guess the Biden administration is now clarifying that they do not wish to remove Putin from power.
Indeed... Rather than thwart Putin's ambitions and remove him from power, the new plan is to give him a large part of Ukraine, you know, the valuable parts.
So, not exactly a success.
And Biden said, we do not seek a war between NATO and Russia, Biden wrote.
As much as I disagree with Mr.
Putin and find his actions in outrage, the United States will not try to bring about his ouster in Moscow.
Do you know what feels like happened?
Now, I'm going to go full conspiracy theory here, but sort of Eisenhower style, meaning not really.
Doesn't it feel as if the military industrial complex just needed something to replace Middle Eastern wars in Afghanistan, and they knew that we had all of this old equipment that needed to be used up before anybody buys new stuff, and that The entire Ukraine war was orchestrated by the industrial military complex.
And it was about nothing but moving inventory.
And that the reason that Biden has now pivoted to, well, maybe we can work with this Putin guy, is because the military industrial complex literally can't make any weapons faster than they already are.
Meaning, they don't need any extra war now.
We have just the right amount of conflict because all of the weapons makers are cranking out weapons as fast as they can to replace the stockpiles of stuff that went to Ukraine.
Is it a fucking coincidence that the real world happens to correspond exactly to what one could imagine would be the best interests of a specific industry?
How is that a coincidence?
So if you wanted to follow the money, I would say look at whether our weapons makers are operating at capacity.
If they're making drones and missiles and replacement tanks and everything else, and handheld missiles, what do you call it, the shoulder-mounted stuff, if we're making that as fast as we can, So that there would be no benefit of having any extra conflict.
You should expect that we'll negotiate some kind of a deal.
That's where the money says we're going.
So, let me summarize this.
There are two things we learned this month.
One is that everything you suspected was true.
Everything you suspected was true.
Hillary Clinton was behind the Russia collusion hoax.
Voting machines are vulnerable, as you suspected.
Transitory inflation was always a lie.
It was always a lie. Mask mandates don't work.
And...
The Biden family are crooks.
All the things you thought were true have actually been shown to be true.
So that's number one. That's the first thing you've learned.
Everything you suspected was true.
Weird. And number two, no one will be held responsible.
Everything you suspected was true.
No one will be held responsible.
None of these stories have anybody going to jail or Right?
Who's going to lose a job?
Anything. Who lost an election, lost a job, went to jail, paid a ticket?
Anything. Every one of those things that you thought maybe were true, were true.
Now, that doesn't mean that the 2016 election was rigged.
That's a different topic.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that anything that can be rigged will be rigged.
You just don't know if it's happened yet.
So we do know that if these vulnerabilities were the kind that could actually change elections, I'm not sure that's true.
But if that's true, that they were that kind of vulnerabilities, and they had persisted, somebody would have rigged an election eventually, probably.
You just have to wait for it.
We just don't know if it happened already.
And can we get a Johnny Depp verdict today, please?
Can we? You keep saying 2016?
Oh, I'm sorry. 2020, yes.
2020 election.
We don't know about the 2020 election.
Yeah, we need a Johnny Depp verdict to entertain us.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the live stream.
And I think you'd probably agree that the long COVID made this a better show than normal, right?
A little bit better.
You should start looking out for the little superpowers you're going to get to.
Maybe you'll get a little better rest.
Concentrate better. Might have a little bit more energy for exercising.
